Section One: Introduction, Overview and Perspectives

Introduction

Note: Endnotes are enclosed in "[ ]".
Background

To understand the issues underlying the current concerns regarding scientific diving at sea, one must go back in time to the late seventies. On 5 November 1976 Federal OSHA first issued standards [1] regulating commercial diving in which they defined commercial diving as 'any diving in which an employee/employer relationship existed.' Under these rules, OSHA classified diving researchers as commercial divers thereby putting significant operational and safety constraints on diving by the scientific community. Among the problems with the OSHA regulations that were cited by members of the scientific diving community were a number of specified changes in operating methods which the scientific diving community considered unsafe [2]. Additionally, these changes would have caused a substantial reduction in useful science time and -vessel space at sea by reducing operational efficiency.

The scientific community strongly disagreed with the OSHA action, feeling that the scientific community had established and maintained an excellent safety record as a self-regulated entity. In order to respond to this perceived threat, the American Association of Underwater Sciences (AAUS) was formed. The group effectively presented the scientific community's diving safety record, as well as its needs and requirements. After protracted hearings and reversals, OSHA finally exempted the research diving community on 26 November 1982. OSHA's ruling withstood a subsequent court challenge.

NOTE: In exempting the scientific diving community OSHA determined that, '. . . there are significant differences between commercial diving and scientific diving . . .', and amended its rules to exempt scientific diving that is'... . under the direction and control of a diving program utilizing a diving safety manual and a diving control board meeting certain specified criteria.'

OSHA's amendment to Subpart T was finalized when the 7th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals denied the Petition of The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners on the grounds that the union lacked standing to bring the suit. This was the first time in history that a court had denied a labor union standing in such a case.

The University National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) adopted the AAUS standards in 1985 for all shipboard diving undertaken at member institutions. In 1988 the National Science Foundation (NSF), a major supporter of both UNOLS and the academic institutions within the organization, expressed concern about the application of these safety standards and their relation to research-related accidents that had taken place within the scientific community. Some of the accidents occurred within the marine field, both at sea and ashore, and included two shipboard diving non-fatalities and one remote site diving fatality.

NOTE: UNOLS is an association of institutions. Each member institution uses, or operates and uses, sea-going facilities and maintains an academic program in marine science. UNOLS' objective is to coordinate and review the utilization of facilities of academic oceanographic research, access to these facilities, and the current match of facilities to the needs of academic oceanographic programs. UNOLS makes appropriate recommendations of priorities for replacing, modifying or improving the numbers and mix of facilities for the community of users.

Because of this, and especially because of concerns expressed by UNOLS ship operators, NSF decided that there was a need to precipitate useful discussions among the parties involved in scientific diving operations. The ship operators felt uneasy with over-the-side diving operations, especially in the open ocean, the diving scientists felt somewhat put upon by the rules, regulations and complications of meeting the diving regulatory requirements, and the campus diving administrations found themselves in the middle of these issues.

NOTE: Throughout the report the term 'campus' is used generically and refers to a local administrative unit that something is part of. 'Campus diving administration' is also used as a general term, to accommodate the differences in the assignment of authority at different institutions. At some institutions the actions assigned to the campus diving administration may require only the work of a single individual while at others it may require a committee or board meeting.

The UHMS Workshop on Safety Guidelines for Diving from Ships at Sea

A workshop to discuss the diving-related issues was conducted on Friday, 29 April 1988, by the Undersea & Hyperbaric Medical Society (UHMS) under NSF/NOAA sponsorship. Its goals were defined as: establishment of guidelines for the oceanographic vessel Masters; review and assessment of control of research diving operational safety; the development of an annotated bibliography dealing with scientific diving at sea, its problems and issues (i.e., physiology, training, experience, etc.); and publishing the results of the deliberations. UHMS is in the process of completing the output from this initial workshop [3].

The workshop convened three primary groups: commercial divers, Navy divers, and scientific diving administrators. A review of the transcripts from the workshop showed that while each of the parties had good and sufficient reasons as to why they conduct diving operations as they do, each party had differing missions, philosophies, strategies, and resources. As a result, no substantial beneficial interaction occurred. The discussion did not include a definition of responsibility for, and authority over diving operations, which led to the conclusion that further efforts were required to address the needs and interests of the scientific community. A vigorous debate regarding chamber use also appeared to warrant additional discussion.

The URI/GSO Workshop on Shipboard Scientific Diving Safety

Subsequent to the UHMS workshop, the need to bring together a broader and different group of people to continue the process of establishing safety guidelines and standards for research diving was reinforced by a number of events. A major effort had gone into revision of the UNOLS Shipboard Safety Standards [4](which included a section covering research diving); the Research Vessel Operators' Committee (RVOC) Safety Training Manual [5] was in development (which also included a chapter on research diving); and the UNOLS Submersible Science Study (S3) was in progress.

NOTE: The RVOC is a committee of UNOLS. Its purpose is to promote cooperation among the marine science research and educational institutions and to represent their interests in the areas of marine operations, government regulations, labor relations, and public relations as those areas effect their research fleets. Membership in the RVOC, while based on representation from UNOLS operator institutions, is also open to non-UNOLS institutions who operate research vessels for purposes similar to UNOLS.

Other new information that needed examination came from the AAUS, which had just put forth new medical examination schedules and published material that had not been considered at the UHMS workshop, concerning cold water diving, diving computers, and safe rates of ascent. Additionally, 58 campus diving administration representatives (Diving Safety Officers and Diving Control Board members) from 41 institutions met at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, as part of the AAUS Annual Symposium, and documented their concerns [6] relative to topics of safety, equipment, procedures, training, new diving technologies and reciprocity.

NOTE: The first S3 Committee compiled a report in 1982 which was primarily concerned with the ALVIN upgrade. The present S3 was charged by UNOLS to draft a plan for conducting a study of the broad scientific program requirements for submersibles and related technologies in the next decade and beyond.

The study was focused on two principal objectives:

Specific tasks for the URI/GSO workshop included:

The planning for the URI/GSO workshop differed somewhat from that for the UHMS workshop.

The primary goal was to bring together experts from inside UNOLS and scientific diving community to review both the output from the UHMS workshop and the new material that was available. This review was targeted at providing the greatest possible assistance to UNOLS in the establishment of research diving safety guidelines and standards that were efficient with respect to scientific resources.

A clear part of assuring diving scientists' safety was meeting the goal of improving communication between organizations and the members of the on-site teams involved with the diving. General concepts and specifics concerning the assignment of responsibility and authority for shipboard diving is unclear and contradictory especially when one asks the on-board participants who is in charge of what. This is of special concern to ship Masters at sea. Documentation dealing with the qualification and interchange of research divers among institutions is poorly defined as is the transmission, updating, and storage of that documentation.

Phase One

The URI/GSO workshop began with an examination of the structure of the scientific diving community. Figure 1 shows the interrelationships defined by that examination. The federal agencies (NSF, the Office of Naval Research (ONR) and others) are coupled together through the mechanism of UNOLS to deal with academic fleet operations. UNOLS includes not only all of the academic vessel operators (who make up the membership of the RVOC) but also other institutions who conduct major scientific research activities at sea. This strongly linked system is driven by science needs. Science, through peer review, determines funding of research and this involvement of the working scientist in both UNOLS and AAUS activities creates a strong, but informal, link. Additionally, AAUS is highly responsive to campus diving administrations. However, as Figure 1 shows, there is no direct linkage between the AAUS and the ship operators. Therefore, one of the purposes of this second workshop was to determine if a link was important and, if it was, to find an effective means to establish and maintain it.

Although there are no formal links between the organizations, there is commonality in membership. The Marine Technology Society (MTS) estimates that there are 350 marine research institutions in the nation. Fifty-six of these are members of UNOLS (Figure 2). An examination of AAUS membership within UNOLS shows that all but eight UNOLS institutions have AAUS Individual Members on campus, 16 of the UNOLS institutions are AAUS Organizational Members, and seven are in the process of joining (Table 1). Of the 56 UNOLS institutions, 21 are members of the RVOC. Eleven RVOC institutions are AAUS Organizational Members, four RVOC institutions are in the process of becoming AAUS Organizational Members, and all of the RVOC members have Individual Members of AAUS on campus. Despite this high degree of organizational correspondence, no formal mechanism exists for making use of these interrelationships.

Communication between organizations is not the only issue. In addition, there are issues concerned with responsibility and authority, liability and qualifications, safety and accident management, scientific efficiency, documentation, new technology and practices, and continuity. An overriding objective in dealing with these problems is to avoid setting up excess bureaucracy that would inhibit the accomplishment of primary tasks. To address these concerns, communication can and must be improved. Better communication is required between the organizations, between the individuals at the dive site, and between the organizations and the on-site individuals.

There are new technologies that will require the science community to deal with operational safety issues similar to those raised by research diving at sea. An example is the use of non-dedicated vessels with OMADS. Although one workshop is unlikely to resolve all these issues. it was hoped that, by providing a forum for knowledgeable people to respond with individual points of view, either agreement on the various issues, or equally important, documentation of disagreement would be produced so that the community could develop solutions to its problems.

NOTE: OMADS, or One Man Atmospheric Diving Systems, are small, light, scientist piloted submersibles. They range from simple human powered systems such as armored diving suits like the JIM and NEWT Suit to small, light, one-person submersible system such Deep Rover.

Figure 3 compares the approach taken in the UHMS workshop with that of the URI/GSO workshop. The UHMS brought together groups of divergent viewpoints, practices and concerns about diving safety. URI/GSO brought together the groups with specific concerns with, and influence over, scientific diving (ship operators, scientists, and campus diving administrations) together with representatives of AAUS and UHMS. Each of these three constituencies brought various organizational affiliations which typically were: ship operators (UNOLS and RVOC), scientists (UNOLS and AAUS) and campus diving administrations (AAUS).

Copies of existing documentation were provided to the workshop participants (i.e., UNOLS Shipboard Safety Standards: Section 15 - Diving; RVOC Safety Training Manual: Diving Section; and AAUS Standards for Scientific Diving Certification and Operation of Scientific Diving Programs).

The charge to the panel was to produce:

Phase Two

Once the workshop participants were identified, they were supplied with the documents of interest and met in Washington D.C. from 18-20 February, 1990 for two and a half days. Resulting documents were prepared, exchanged and edited, and then a small working group convened at the W. Alton Jones Campus of the University of Rhode Island on 2-3 July 1990 for a day and a half to provide editorial assistance with the final report and complete work on some unresolved issues. The following is the report from the Washington D.C. and W. Alton Jones meetings.

Table 1 
Institution Name			AAUS			AAUS
					Org.			 Ind. 
					Member			Member
Alabama Marine Env. Sci. Consort.				 Yes
Univ. of Alaska 						 Yes
Bermuda Biological Station 		 App			 Yes 
Bigelow Lab. for Ocean Science
Brookhaven National Lab
Univ. of Cal, San Diego - SIO 1 	 Yes			 Yes 
Univ. of Cal, Santa Barbara 1					 Yes
Cape Fear Technical Inst.					 Yes
Columbia Univ. - LDGO 						 Yes 
Univ. of Connecticut			  RA			 Yes
Univ. of Delaware						 Yes 
Duke Univ./Univ. of North Carolina Consort.			 Yes
Florida Inst. for Ocg.						 Yes
Florida lnst. of Technology					 Yes
Florida State Univ.			 Yes			 Yes
Harbor Branch Oceanographic Inst.	 Yes			 Yes
Harvard Univ.							 Yes
Univ. of Hawaii				 Yes			 Yes
Hobart & William Smith Colleges
John Hopkins Univ.						 Yes 
Leigh Univ. 
Louisiana Univ. Marine Consort.		 Yes			 Yes 
Univ. of Maine				 App			 Yes
Marine Sci. Consort.						 Yes
Univ. of Maryland						 Yes
Massachusetts Inst. of Tech.					 Yes
Univ. of Miami - RSMAS			 Yes			 Yes 
Univ. of Michigan 						 Yes 
Monterey Bay Aqua. Research Inst.	 Yes			 Yes
Moss Landing Marine Lab.		 Yes			 Yes 
Naval Postgraduate School
Univ. of New Hampshire						 Yes
New York State Univ.-Buffalo					 Yes
New York State Univ.-Stony Brook				 Yes
North Carolina State Univ.					 Yes
Univ. of North Carolina-Wilmington	 Yes			 Yes
Nova Univ.							 Yes
Occidental College						 Yes
Old Dominion College						 Yes
Oregon State Univ.			 App			 Yes 
Univ. of Puerto Rico						 Yes
Univ. of Rhode Island - GSO		 Yes			 Yes 
San Diego State Univ.			 Yes			 Yes
Sea Education Association					 Yes
Univ. of South Carolina						 Yes
Univ. of South Florida			  RA			 Yes
Univ. System of Ga., Skidaway lnst. of Ocg.			 Yes
Univ. Southern California		 App			 Yes 
Univ. of Texas				 App			 Yes 
Texas A&M Univ.				 Yes2			 Yes 
Virginia Inst. of Marine Sci.		 Yes			 Yes
Univ. of Washington			 Yes			 Yes 
Univ. of Wisconsin - Madison
Univ. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Univ. of Wisconsin-Superior
Woods Hole Ocg. Inst.			 Yes			 Yes

RVOC Institutions are underlined.
App=Application under review.
RA=Requested application.
1 Several California State University campuses share an AAUS membership.
2 The main TAMU campus is not a member of AAUS, the marine lab is.

Table 1: UNOLS Members showing RVOC and AAUS Affiliations.

The URI/GSO Workshop on Shipboard Scientific Diving Safety, an Overview

The URI/GSO Workshop on Shipboard Scientific Diving Safety, held in Washington, DC from Sunday through Tuesday, 18-20 February 1990, consisted of eight major elements (Appendix A: Schedule of the URI/GSO Workshop on Shipboard Scientific Diving Safety). The 21 participants (Appendix B: List of Attendees) represented various academic institutions, national oceanographic laboratories and other involved organizations including: American Academy of Underwater Sciences, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, Marine Biological Consultants Applied Environmental Sciences Inc., Northeastern University's Marine Science Center, Research Vessel Operators' Committee, Smithsonian Institution, Texas A & M University, University of Rhode Island's Graduate School of Oceanography, University of California at San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Maine's Darling Marine Center, University National Oceanographic Laboratory System and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Although the Director of the NOAA/NURC (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Undersea Research Center) program was unable to attend the URI/GSO workshop, NOAA was a co-sponsor. The attendees were selected to assure representation from science, ship, and diving administration constituencies. Each constituency was asked to state its perceptions of shipboard scientific diving safety and expectations for the workshop.

Following a slide presentation illustrating blue water diving techniques, a session was held to present a short example of the application of a matrix (Appendix C: The Matrix) to a case study. This matrix was then used for detailed examination and review by three task groups (Figure 4).

Each task group was carefully designed to include members from each constituency. One task group was chaired by a representative of each constituency. The task groups were asked to perform three assignments:

1) Review each cruise event, determine which listed individuals and organizations were involved in that event (adding any overlooked participants) and rank the participants' involvement with respect to their own subjective appreciation of the participants' level of combined authority and responsibility.

2) Conduct a detailed examination and review of several case studies to determine that their rankings were appropriate.

3) Apply the task group's matrix results to case studies.

Formal presentations and discussions were held on the following topics: multi-institutional diving cruises, special personnel for diving cruises, responsibility statements, diver training standards, small boats and small boat operators, emergency planning and accident management, recompression chambers, new technologies issues, and future needs. The closing sessions defined requirements to complete the current tasks.

The participants were asked to make recommendations to NSF to concerning the safety of scientists diving at sea. The workshop also developed a few examples of recommended procedures, such as the Pre-Cruise Dive Plan form, for use by organizations concerned with the process of scientific diving from academic research vessels at sea (e.g., NSF, UNOLS, RVOC, NOAA, AAUS). It is hoped that these organizations and others such as the Medical Advisory System will, through their normal processes, make the best possible use of this information.

NOTE: MAS is a private contractor to UNOLS (and others) It supplies medical advice to ships at sea.

Perspectives on the Problem

The first formal session of the workshop was designed to give the participants the opportunity to present their organization's shipboard diving concerns, their perceptions of the issues and to state their views on required workshop output. The format used was to have a representative of each constituency make a presentation, followed by discussion among the attendees.

UNOLS/RVOC - Jim Williams

In 1986 the revised UNOLS Shipboard Safety Standards, which for the first time included a diving section, was published. The standards are updated periodically, most recently in 1989. The RVOC makes the point that these safety standards are to be considered as minimum guidelines for UNOLS research vessels. All UNOLS ship operators and users of UNOLS vessels are expected to be thoroughly familiar with these standards and comply with their recommendations. More detailed or stringent requirements, if necessary, are included in institutional policy documents and even state law.

The crucial test for a set of standards is the critical experience that one goes through in an investigation following an accident. Did the standards answer the hard questions that are asked such as: 'who is in charge of safety? How much training has been done? Have regulations been posted? Have inspections been held?' Pressure to provide increased protection for all employees has produced substantial changes in shipboard policy documents.

Discussion

All activities have recognized hazards and going to sea has its own. The scientific community, in concert with academic institutions, the sponsors of science programs, and UNOLS, has worked hard to do everything possible to provide a safe working environment. This consensual effort has been highly effective and has resulted in the establishment of a clear standard of practice for the U.S. research fleet, the UNOLS Shipboard Safety Standards. These standards reference the American Academy of Underwater Sciences Standards for Scientific Diving Certification and Operation of Scientific Diving Programs as the accepted standard of practice of the UNOLS research diving community.

Comparing the academic community to others, it is clear that the academic community does not document either general shipboard or diving activities to the extent that, for example, the U.S. Navy does, with its extensive manpower availability and special needs. However, the academic community does claim to document in more depth than commercial operators. The most significant difference in concept between academic and commercial diving is that the primary responsibility for safety rests with the individual research diver. This approach is quite unlike the military or commercial system in which primary responsibility rests with the line supervisor. Additionally, institutions interact as equals in a collegial relationship. One does not 'boss' the other, and this underlines the principle of local control.

One of the workshop objectives was to determine if available policy documentation (e.g., the UNOLS standards, AAUS manual, etc.) are sufficiently detailed to reflect shipboard needs, including definition of items such as the Master's responsibility. An energetic debate between shipboard operators and divers swirled around the issue of degrees of specificity desirable for written procedures. The participants from the research vessel community took the position that more specific definition of responsibility and authority is desirable. The research diving community felt it was best to establish minimum standards in no greater detail than was absolutely necessary, details being best established on the local level as the situation demands.

It was pointed out that the divers need to keep up with advances in equipment, such as: buoyancy compensators, NITROX, dry suits and diving computers. AAUS felt that they fulfill this role by holding workshops and disseminating information on new technology to the campus diving administrations (Appendix D: AAUS Bibliography for details of various workshop proceedings). In addition to establishing standards, AAUS stated that they also accumulate statistics relative to shipboard diving experiences and accidents in the form of a database.

NOTE :NITROX is a 'man-made' breathing mixture composed of nitrogen and oxygen. These gases are in a rough ratio of four to one in regular air. By producing a mixture that has a higher proportion of oxygen, it is possible to lessen the narcotic effect of breathing nitrogen under pressure and to reduce the amount of nitrogen absorbed by the diver which limits the time a diver can stay underwater safely. Some amount of nitrogen must be present since oxygen becomes toxic when breathed at a partial pressure of two atmospheres or more. HELIOX (an expensive mixture of Helium and Oxygen) is used for very deep diving where oxygen toxicity, the narcotizing effect of nitrogen and the density of the breathing gas are limiting factors.

The point was made that, regardless of the specificity of the standards, external control of the diver ceases when the diver drops over the side. At that point the individuals must be operationally responsible for their own safety. It became clear from the discussion, however, that in order to keep the standards generic, the ship's Master requires a clear responsibility/authority document. He is held, by both the institution and the U.S. Coast Guard, to be responsible for the ship and the people on board even when they are over the side and even though it is clear that he has no actual control over a diver in the water.

It was further suggested that the concept of having an On-Board Diving Supervisor specifically identified from among the research party whose primary responsibility is the safety of the operation is desirable. However, it is frequently impractical due to cost and space limitations to have someone on board uniquely for that role. The point was made that personnel controlling the diving operation must have the confidence of the ship's Master and have a relationship similar to that of the Master and the Chief Engineer.

RVOC Safety Training Manual Subcommittee - Jack Bash

The creation of the RVOC Safety Training Manual grew out of a realization within the RVOC that commonality in training and further definition of the shipboard operators' role was required. The concept was underlined by the results of fleet inspection teams that review the research vessels every two years. A committee was set up through the RVOC (with UNOLS endorsement) to draft a specific training manual, now in preparation with publication expected during the summer of 1990. In contrast, the UNOLS Shipboard Safety Standards is a policy document that provides RVOC members with minimum guidelines for research vessel safety. Section 15 of these standards covers diving safety.

The Safety Training Manual is written for a seaman, under the presumption that he or she has not read other manuals. The first chapter of the manual (there are 14 chapters) is designed to be used as a summary orientation document for the scientist. In a sense, it will be two manuals in one: training for the crew, and orientation for the scientist. The definition of its approach, contents, and downstream usage is expected to be subject to continual redefinition. Training procedures, and training video tapes, may come out of this manual. The RVOC can consider minor changes prior to the publication date. The manual is a living document, designed to accommodate changes in technology and be revised periodically.

Discussion

Questions were raised about the necessity of technical changes in the document to reflect current diving practice. For instance, the Trendelenburg position (a left-side-down, head low transport position) featured in the present document, has been shown recently not to be helpful.

The average non-diving crew members focus on the danger of an equipment failure resulting in running out of air. This is not a problem that occurs with any frequency. In any case, the crews' concern should be focused on the organization and control of the emergency aspects of the operation, not on a diver's potential individual problem.

The RVOC Safety Training Manual contains more specific details on diving techniques than are included in the AAUS manual. This is because AAUS standards and guidelines are at the policy level (as are the UNOLS Safety Standards) while the RVOC Safety Training Manual is more specific and should be viewed at the same level as AAUS technique documents. The definition of terms should be constant within all of the documentation. Ideally, there should be no discrepancy between guidelines and training.

It was critical to define, with specificity, the role of the lead institution's Chief Scientist and the Principal Investigator of the diving program in order to allow a clear decision regarding which person or organization is responsible. For example, the lead institution's campus diving administration is not always a part of the Principal Investigator's home institution.

The comment was made that there are significant differences between the operations of coastal benthic divers and open-ocean divers. Concern was expressed that both the UNOLS Shipboard Safety Standards and the RVOC Safety Training Manual, as they exist, do not fairly represent benthic-oriented diving from relatively large ships offshore, where the divers work with both comparatively heavy research equipment and samples. The operational differences become less distinct as ships get closer to shore and smaller.

It was also felt that the RVOC Safety Training Manual does not deal with equipment support diving in which untethered scuba diving takes place in connection with OMADS and tethered vehicles such as the Remote Underwater Manipulator (RUM). A plea was made for a formal review mechanism to be established involving the concerned parties. This mechanism would not be unlike the treatment given the radiological section of the UNOLS' Standards (i.e., have the document reviewed by the diving community through AAUS).

NOTE: The RUM is a unique vehicle designed to be controlled through a cable connection to the surface. It crawls along the bottom and features deep water capability, an advanced manipulator and a high quality video system. It can carry scientific experiments. Divers are used to help launch and recover it in the open ocean.

The participants clearly felt that more mission-specific details should be developed as part of an onboard cruise dive plan. A vigorous discussion on the subject of degrees of specificity took place. The final outcome favored the inclusion of details. The identifying of exact marine band communications rather than simply saying 'radio' was cited as an example. Additionally, questions dealing with the configuration of the vessel and its abilities need to be addressed. Will there be open-ocean diving? Live boating? Will the boat be underway? In the case of saturation diving habitats and shore-based operations, ships are not considered to be the controlling element.

It was considered critical to specify more interaction among the small boat crew, the primary vessel, and the research divers under both normal and emergency conditions. This is especially important in situations such as in the Antarctic where, for instance, outboard motors must be kept running or they freeze even though diver safety considerations would suggest shutting them down.

The discussion then shifted to the responsibility of the small boat operators and the vessel from which the actual diving takes place. Should the operator be primarily a competent seaman or a research diver? The tenor of opinion was that competent seamanship is more important but diving knowledge could be advantageous, especially in the case of accidents and the early recognition of problems such as an injured or lost diver. In large-scale operations, a dive-ready, back-up diver should be in the boat, but it was not recommended that the boat tender leave his vessel to interact with the in-water operations. It was felt that the On-Board Diving Supervisor should generally remain on the large vessel observing the operation, linked to the communication system and in a position to take charge in emergency situations. It was stated that activities in which the most dangerous conditions occurred was loading and off-loading of personnel between the main vessel and the smaller dive boat.

If an accident occurs, the Master of the main vessel has the responsibility for establishing communication with pre-defined medical advisory personnel. The diving people working with the vessel EMT(s) should be prepared to deal with oxygen administration and emergency management. The idea of having emergency drills on board a vessel conducting diving operations was put forward. Both the scientific party and the ship's crew must clearly understand how to communicate with the agencies involved in medical emergency and rescue. The Master's ultimate responsibility and full-scale involvement in the process was emphasized.

AAUS - Chuck Mitchell

In 1976 Federal OSHA and the U.S. Coast Guard issued draft emergency standards covering commercial diving operations. The driving force behind these standards was that the commercial diving industry had experienced unacceptable levels of employee injury, primarily in North Sea oil exploration work. For the purposes of these standards, commercial diving was defined as 'those activities in which there was an employee/employer relationship.' This categorization included diving by scientists.

The scientific diving community reacted vigorously, pointing out to OSHA that it had been self-regulating since 1951, had an excellent safety record, and that some of the standards required by the OSHA standards were both inappropriate and unsafe. Upon receipt of this information, OSHA and the U.S. Coast Guard indicated that scientific diving would be exempt; however, when the standards came out in 1977 scientific diving had been removed from the U.S. Coast Guard documents but was still included in OSHA's regulations.

Because Federal OSHA recognizes individual state OSHA organizations, California, with its closely knit scientific diving community, prepared unique standards for their own state. These standards were approved, and the federal government allowed the national issue to be reopened. The work-loss-injury rate quoted for scientific divers at that time was just under that for bankers: 0.0037/200,000 man hours. In consideration of these data, scientific divers were finally exempted because of their decades of self-regulation and maintenance of in-house standards covering operations, training, and individual diver control over the operation.

AAUS was formed in 1977, and incorporated in 1981 in the State of California as a nonprofit organization. Its scientific diving safety standards are generic; they cover certification of scientific divers and operation of scientific diving programs. They do not cover specific types of diving such as shipboard operations. They include minimum standards for such things as diver training levels and medical exams. Specific types of diving information are included in different publications, (e.g., Blue-Water Diving, Diving Computers, Biomechanics of Ascents).

AAUS standards, initially issued in the early 1980s, are the scientific community's accepted diving standards. AAUS includes Individual Members from almost one hundred institutions. Thirty-one marine research institutions are either Organizational Members or are in the process of becoming Organizational Members of AAUS. For an institution to qualify for membership, it must have a diving safety manual which meets the minimum AAUS standards. This document is reviewed by the AAUS Standards Committee before the institution becomes a member and before reciprocity with other Organizational Members can be expected. Reporting of diving and accident statistics is required. AAUS also acts as a clearinghouse for information as well as a resource for statistics and scientific/technical information. The standards are in a constant state of review. A second edition has been issued, and revisions concerning medical standards are underway.

The organization is all volunteer and is self-supporting in both its conferences and publications through dues, registration fees and publications sales income. It has an ad hoc representative on the executive committee of the UHMS. While board meetings take place four times a year, there are also regular committee meetings. Chuck Mitchell (Marine Biological Consultants Applied Environmental Sciences) is the current elected President, with Mike Lang (Scientific Diving Officer at the Smithsonian Institution) being the President-Elect. There is also an elected Vice President and Secretary. Since 1980 the organization has held an annual symposia at various locations throughout the country.

The typical symposia proceeding (Appendix D: AAUS Bibliography), available at the annual meeting, is on the order of 300 pages with papers that cover scientific results, operational procedures, medical requirements, technological improvements, ship design, etc. Additionally, there is a quarterly newsletter. (It was pointed out that UHMS also produces documentation on NITROX, diving accident management, oxygen treatment, etc.) AAUS estimates that at least ten percent of its members' annual diving is done from shipboard, frequently from vessels smaller than those in the UNOLS fleet.

One problem related to the use of AAUS standards occurs when science divers are involved with more than one agency on a research project such as those involving both NSF and NOAA. Frequently, the organizations involved will be faced with operational conflicts stemming primarily from differences in the details of each agency's approach.

With multi-institutional diving, the Principal Investigator is required to provide documentation, on all cruise research divers, to the lead institution's campus diving administration. This is much easier when the institutions involved are part of AAUS and thus have a framework for reciprocity. Typically on a shipboard diving cruise, the ship's Master and appropriate crew members are given an orientation lecture early on, covering expectations for support, description of actual diving efforts, and the expected response to emergency situations.

Science - Larry Madin, Alice Alldredge, Jon Witman and Bob Steneck

The scope of scientific diving includes operations, safety, and administrative issues. Science is significantly impacted by these elements, both in terms of what can be done and the costs of doing it. If the expense of the operation becomes too high, science capability suffers. The full spectrum of diving from ships in the open ocean includes blue-water diving and benthic subtidal activities. Many of these activities are conducted well offshore, some even from small boats. Of critical concern is diving in a remote location where one must rely on one's own resources in the event of an accident. This requires establishment and communication of reasonable safety procedures and common understanding of standards, and rules and regulations. Questions and concerns arise from selection of types of equipment, definition of lead institution, establishment of the individual in charge, and institutional certification of divers.

Research diving is labor intensive and often involves volunteers, some of whom are undergraduate and graduate students. Issues involved with certification, training, insurance, liability, and support of this subset of divers, while especially critical, are often ill defined. In some cases, the problem is alleviated by confining volunteer help to noncritical tasks such as working with collections, tank filling, etc.

There is a high degree of variation between cruises and between operators as to what science brings to ships as well as what ship operations bring to science. Inconsistencies exist relative to availability and configuration of critical tools such as air compressors, inflatable boats, outboard motors, tanks, etc. Typical emergency questions include: Is there breathing oxygen on board? Does it work? Who knows how to use it? Who is responsible in a medical emergency? Some diving emergency equipment such as medical oxygen has other applications, such as for heart attacks. Other questions: Should the scientists back up ship's gear with their own equipment? Who should equip the small boat with emergency equipment? What equipment is required? Discussion on who is responsible for provision and operation of small boats, the crew or science, is frequently an open issue. Protocol between ship Master and small boat operator involving such things as surface separation should be worked out ahead of time. This is especially critical when the ship is new to the area and the local conditions and may result in a conflict of judgment in which case the Master has the ultimate responsibility.

A good solution to a number of these problems is to have a pre-cruise consultation among the parties. The discussion of how the dives will be conducted should be quite specific, including details on equipment (i.e., compressor, oxygen tanks, sources, capabilities, and control). A pre-cruise conference with a full and clear checklist or agenda involving the Principal Investigator, On-Board Diving Supervisor and the Master is critical. It was noted that most ship accidents do not involve diving, and that statistic is biased by the relative low frequency of diving cruises.

While it would be nice to have agency diving support equipment available on all vessels, rather like CTDs are, this is unlikely due to infrequency of use. The problem of supplying equipment can be lessened by the availability of fully equipped diving vans and designation of specific vessels for diving cruises.

NOTE: A CTD is an electronic instrument that is lowered through the water on a cable, simultaneously measures conductivity, temperature and depth. While instruments are occasionally supplied by individual investigators, they are more often part of a pool of oceanographic equipment that are available on a rate-basis to researchers using a given ship.

There may well be different appreciations of equipment condition and suitability by the ship and the diver, especially regarding items such as compressors and small boats. The use of both air quality determination equipment and emergency oxygen requires specialized training. Interesting questions arise such as what is the difference between welding oxygen and medical oxygen? The only apparent difference is that medical oxygen requires that the tank must be completely emptied and refilled rather than just 'topped off' in order to assure that impurities are not present in the tank. Some states require prescriptions for medical oxygen.

Discussion

Shipboard diving safety is not a new concern. Documentation relating to techniques goes back to the late sixties and early seventies (Appendix E: Historical Shipboard Diving Procedures). Many of the items in the various standards, as well as ideas that are brought up at this workshop, have been informal standard operating practice for many years.

Because ship inspection teams often look superficially at diving capability, a more detailed review appears warranted. This review should concentrate on the diving equipment and the ship equipment (i.e., small boats and motors) as well as procedures for use and access to accident-response equipment. When the shipboard inspection program was first implemented, some operators were concerned that deficiencies would subject them to undue criticism. However, what actually happened -was that ship quality and safety improved.

It is highly desirable for the Master, Chief Engineer, Diving Safety Officer, On-Board Diving Supervisor and the Principal Investigator to conduct a formal walk-through of the ship's equipment needed by the divers (e.g., small boats, crane). This process is difficult to implement when scientific parties and ships meet for the first time at a foreign port.

A critical issue for shipboard diving is special personnel. Due to the limited number of berths, establishing a separate requirement for a person whose sole task is that of On-Board Diving Supervisor can be a hardship.

The use of volunteer personnel in support of research diving is a complex issue. At the University of California, volunteers are listed as unpaid employees of the University. This allows them coverage under Workmen's Compensation. The volunteers' background, experience and certification is reviewed by the campus diving administration. They must pass a physical exam (often at their own expense), a written exam, and two monitored dives before being certified. Volunteers are not permitted to serve as an On-Board Diving Supervisor. WHOI issues a temporary diving permit but does not assume the Workmen's Compensation coverage burden unless compensation is involved. The inconsistency of these practices is illustrative of the differences between state and private institutions.

When it is determined that a dedicated On-Board Diving Supervisor is required on a cruise, salary and expenses may (or may not) be provided by the grant or the operating institution. Principal Investigators, however, frequently appear to be unaware of these additional ship-use costs. Better pre-cruise coordination and uniform user manuals should clarify the situation. It is impossible to assume the availability of the lead institution's Diving Safety Officer as On-Board Diving Supervisor for extended cruises because of simultaneous land-based diving or other activities. Uniformity in diving support requirements across the fleet is also highly desirable to avoid Chief Scientists' shopping for the 'cheapest set of rules.'

In the case of NOAA, which runs its own ship fleet and stages cruises on non-NOAA vessels, On Board Diving Supervisors (who are NOAA employees) are provided without charge. This is in contrast to NSF where ships are institutionally operated through a grant, and mission-specific elements are funded through the science program.

It must be recognized that there may be dramatic differences in constraints, even for the same ship, operating close to an industrialized shore compared to a remote area beyond helicopter evacuation range. The suggestion was made that the proposal peer review process, when diving is involved, could benefit from review of diving operational safety and feasibility (not scientific merit) by a Diving Safety Officer from an RVOC institution, in a manner analogous to the 'compatibility' portion of the ALVIN Review Committee's (ARC) review of proposals.

NOTE: The ALVIN Review Committee is a National Ocean Facilities committee of UNOLS. It was established for purpose of considering proposals for ALVIN submersible use and recommending programs to be scheduled. In recommending the allocation of ALVIN time, the ARC acts primarily on the scientific merit of the proposed research and its compatibility with ALVIN and ALVIN's support system

One way of obtaining access to complex technologies such as NITROX is NOAA's National Undersea Research Center (NURC) program at University of North Carolina - Wilmington (UNCW). UNCW provides on-board expertise, training and all the unique gear. The use of NITROX allows the scientists to almost double their bottom time and may be a useful technique for NSF-supported vessels. Though expensive when compared to conventional scuba, NITROX is very cost effective when viewed in terms of in-water research time available per cruise day. There is not yet a critical mass of users within the academic diving community to warrant the development of such a facility within UNOLS; however, the participants expect that such proposals will be received by NSF in the future.

NOTE: The NURC program is a system of undersea research facilities funded by NOAA and operated through the University of Alaska, the Caribbean Marine Research Center, the University of Connecticut, the University of Hawaii, and the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. These facilities make available research facilities including submersibles, ROVs and advanced scuba and surface supplied diving systems.

NOAA and Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution have requirements for pre-cruise training relative to emergency actions. The specific accident management training is done over two to three days in the spring of each year. They also conduct on-board emergency drills and require medicals and check-out dives for use of NITROX gear.

Within NOAA check-out dives for air scuba are not required. They are called for only where special equipment such as dry suits are to be used or if diving frequency or interval requirements are not met. The requirement for 12 dives per year is designed to assure that a diver is competent and in good physical condition. In temperate climates this can be a problem when the dives are clumped into the warm months. Reciprocity of diver credentials between NOAA and AAUS would be desirable but is not being formally pursued at this time.

AAUS provides a framework for an efficient reciprocity between institutions relative to basic and specialty diving competence. Standardized reporting and perhaps a 'scientific diver passport' or card suitable for all Organizational Members is currently underway. The card would contain the individual's name and institution and would signify that the diver has been trained and will operate under AAUS standards. Any specialized training would be listed as well. Establishment of a central data repository is most desirable. While such a mechanism provides entre to initially qualified research divers, it cannot provide an assessment of current capability, a matter to be addressed by the Diving Safety Officer prior to the cruise.

A checklist for cruise diving procedures should be made a uniform requirement for the entire academic fleet. The checklist should include procedures, responsibilities, schedules, sequences, and documents. The impact of additional diving requirements, paperwork, and infrastructure is significant for smaller institutions. The repetitive paperwork load should be reduced. For instance, in cases of doing interagency work, multiple diving logs and physical examination requirements, such as yearly blood typing, should be avoided. A national medical database, perhaps maintained by AAUS or the Medical Advisory System, could be made available to institutions in need through FAX. Diving EMTs, while useful and desirable, probably do not offer enough of an advantage over regular EMTs to merit that as a requirement.

NOTE: Emergency Medical Technicians are carried on some research vessels. These individuals are typically members of the ship's crew who have received special medical training and who take on this responsibility in addition to their normal duties. There is a special category of EMT the Diving Medical Technician (DMT). The DMT program was designed to meet the specialized medical needs of the offshore diving industry. While, to the best of the workshop participants' knowledge, there are no DMTs among the crew members of the UNOLS vessels, at least one scientific technician has received this type of training.

The question of telling a physician the details of how to do his job was broached. If a campus diving administration is willing to accept the physical examination results, why should it constrain the physician? The diving medical exam has eliminated a few candidates on the initial exam. Few, if any, problems have been picked up on renewal physicals. The guidelines should not dictate to the physician what to do, but should identify the conditions that might present medical problems for the diver. An ideal physician for this service would have recent training in diving medicine.

The question of whether or not the ship should conduct other activities during diving operations (i.e., hydrocasts and netting) was discussed. On-site consultation between research divers and the Master appears to be the best method of resolving this type of conflict, though in general it is considered preferable to constrain the ship from doing anything that could preclude its ability to move rapidly in an emergency. A surfaced diver with a problem, while the rest of the team is still below, compounds the difficulty of bringing a rescue vessel into the area where divers will soon surface.

In summary, a scientist needs the ability to plan research and to plan cruises in such a way that there are no on-site surprises and there is efficient interaction with the small number of other people (i.e., Diving Safety Officers, ship operations people, and agency personnel) critical to the mission.

1. 41 Federal Register 48950

2 Federal Regulation of Scientific Divers,' Sharkey, P. and Austin, L.: 1983, in Oceans '83 Proceedings, Marine Technology Society, Washington, D.C.

3 'Safety Guidelines for Diving from Ships at Sea,' Greenbaum, L. (Editor): Draft, Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society, Bethesda, MD.

4 'UNOLS Shipboard Safety Standards,' 1989: University National Oceanographic Laboratory System, University of Washington. Seattle, WA.

5 'Research Vessel Operators' Committee Safety Training Manual,' Bash, J. (Chairman): In Press, University National Oceanographic Laboratory System, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

6 'Minutes of the Annual Research Diving Safety Officers Meeting: 1989', Sharkey, P. (Chairman): 1989, American Academy of Underwater Sciences, Costa Mesa, CA.