1. Fishing Vessel Stability A Draft Guideline Harvey Linton, Industry Services Manager Shane Neifer, OSO, Fish Team Leader

2. Background The Human Case 1975, the Bravado –Sank crossing Hecate Straits, light with net on the drum –7 lives lost –Coroner and jury recommends: Inspection should include stability Modifications that effect stability be reported Stability criteria down to 40 feet (from 80) Modifications recorded and reported

3. Background The Human Case 1997, the Pacific Charmer –Sank in Georgia Strait while trawling for herring –5 persons on board, 3 rescued, 2 died –Corners jury recommended Any major modifications or changes to vessel’s weight that effect stability be documented and forwarded to proper authorities

4. Background The Human Case 2002, the Cap Rouge II –Returning to Fraser River from fishing –7 people on board, 2 children. Only two adult survivors –Corner and jury recommendations Current vessels without stability data have roll period test and freeboard verification Fishing stability taught in a manner understandable to fishermen

5. Background The Human Case 2002, the Cap Rouge II (cont) All vessels at risk undergo a full inclining experiment and provide complete instructions to master Safe maximum load line placed on every vessel Addition of a maintenance modification log documenting changes to the vessel, remaining with the vessel for life 30 years, same recommendations

6. Background The Human Case Fatalities, Claims & Participation: 1991 - 2003

7. Background The Human Case Fishing Percentages of BC Workforce

8. Background The Human Case Fatalities by Gear Type 1991 – 2001 85% Drown

9. Background The Human Case

10. Summary of the Human Case –85% of fishing fatalities are from drowning or being lost at sea –About 50% of these result from vessels sinking or capsizing –A ‘good’ year (1997) 1 in 7238 fishermen died –A ‘bad’ year (2001) 1 in 1425 fishermen died –Last year (2004) 1 in 1214 fishermen died Industry wrongly accepts this high fatality rate as part of the “life at sea”!

11. Background The Financial Case In 2000, Mike Ross Senior Operating Officer Fishing Initiate cross divisional review of fishing industry activities WCB forgives approximately $35 million in unfunded liability Introduce 6 CU’s to replace the single CU Addressed areas of revenue leakage

12. Background The Financial Case In Fishing, fatalities are claims cost driver (injuries drive claim costs in other industries) Approximately 43% of fishing fatal claims result from unstable fishing vessels Since 2000, back to unfunded liability

13. Background The Financial Case Financial State of Fishing CUs

14. A Brief History –1991 Supreme Court of Canada denies appeal of Ontario Labour Board decision determining that “business of fishing” falls to provincial jurisdiction –January 1995, WCB of BC introduces Canada’s first and only Provincial fishing specific safety regulation –Spring 2002, WCB and Transport Canada enter into an MOU on jurisdiction on fishing vessel safety Background The Legal Case

15. OHSR Stability related requirements: –S.24.70 Fishing vessels maintained in a seaworthy condition –S.24.71(2) The owner must ensure that major modifications do not affect stability –S.24.72(b) The owner must provide documentation on vessel characteristics, including stability –S.24.76(a) The master must ensure that the vessel is capable of safely making the voyage, due consideration to seaworthiness

16. Background The Legal Case Prevention Policy around vessel stability sections of the OHSR is fairly extensive Policy allows officers to require formal stability when stability is suspect Policy also details responsibilities of owners and vessel masters

17. Why a Guideline The Cap Rouge II investigation highlighted the complexities of determining adequate vessel stability Prevention Policy does not address what is expected from officers and by industry as acceptable stability criteria There are no formal federal stability requirements for most small fishing vessels

18. Why a Guideline Requirements in the regulation around vessel stability are general and offer no guidance for consistency Industry will require a “level playing field” from which to measure the stability of their vessel The Guideline is a proactive measure to allow industry to address these issues before enforcement is initiated The Guideline will offer consistency of enforcement so that industry will be aware of what the enforcement criteria are Administration of Guideline should ensure regulatory due diligence

19. Why a Guideline What does the Guideline say? –S.24.72(b) of the OSHR requires the owner to offer appropriate instructions for the stability of the vessel –As in all other equipment operations, these instructions need to be meaningful –A vessel must be formally assessed to determine a baseline from which various operating conditions can be modeled and described –Suggests inclining experiments for vessels with closed (void) spaces and freeboard verification and sailing restrictions for vessel with no void spaces It is only from these formal assessments that owners can offer appropriate and meaningful instructions on vessel stability to their crew

20. Consultations Transport Canada –They will be required to approve stability books and will see a significant increase in work load. They accept this and are working at increasing staffing levels in anticipation –Stability is a federal responsibility but they are a few years away from formal requirements and support the efforts of the WCB. They are hopeful that this specific initiative will aid in their national agenda on fishing vessel stability

21. Consultations Industry –A recent formal meeting was held on this issue. Represented were: BC Seafood Alliance BC Council of Professional Fish Harvesters Fishing Vessel Owners Association Fishermen’s Mutual Marine Insurance Northern Native Brotherhood Ocean Fisheries Underwater Harvesters Association Transport Canada Transportation Safety Board –This issue was also discussed with the UFAWU who were unable to attend this recent meeting

22. Consultations Industry Comments –Industry is concerned about the cost for this requirement ($2 to $10 K per vessel, plus need repairs if required) –They do not dispute the need for this work to be completed –They understand that this is a one time requirement as long as the data are maintained –They want to be proactive and participate in the required educational component of this initiative

23. Conclusion This Guideline will ensure that fishing vessels are afforded the same level of stability assessment as all other commercial vessels, vehicles, rail, aircraft and mobile equipment There is a significant education component required once the Guideline has been approved. Work in this regard is underway The Guideline, and the ensuing action coming from it, addresses may years of recommendations from Coroners Courts and Accident Investigations. It also advises on what WCB accepts as compliance of these stability requirements

24. Example Modified, overloaded(?) in Prince Rupert Harbour

25. Example Any Problems?

26. Example Another questionable operation.