|
|
|
|
|
Français | |
Contact Us | |
Help | |
Search | |
Canada Site | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Home | |
Site Map | |
What's New | |
About Us | |
Registration |
|
 Measurement Canada
Sector Review
Retail Petroleum
Consultation
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Retail Petroleum Trade Sector Review Minutes - MontrealTo access any of the PDF documents included in this page, please use this free Adobe Acrobat Reader as needed. Retail Petroleum Minutes Montreal, in PDF format, 94 KB.
Retail Petroleum Trade Sector Review (RPTSR) Presentation: Gilles Pelletier, Retail Petroleum Trade Sector Review Team Member, delivered the RPTSR presentation:
Option consommateurs Presentation: Geneviève Reed delivered the Option consommateurs’ presentation:
Presentation from Mr. Saunders: Mr. George Saunders, Commissioner of the Newfoundland and Labrador Petroleum Products Pricing Commission, was given the opportunity to speak regarding the report he had tabled before the session. He gave a brief introduction and description of his organization. He expanded on the recent study his organization had completed in August 2003 on the Labrador coast (a copy of the report was distributed to everyone). Two main concerns were noted as a result of Mr. Saunders’ tour of the remote/rural communities.
Some key points noted from Mr. Saunders’ address:
Comments from Mr. Dennis O’Keefe: Mr. Dennis O’keefe, representing the Consumer Group for Fair Gas Prices, voiced some of the same concerns from his organization. Some key points noted from Mr. O’Keefe’s address:
Metrology Presentation: Larry Ranger delivered the metrology presentation:
Discussions and Recommendations Recommendations: The recommendations were derived through consensus which implies that the vast majority of stakeholders agree with the recommendations. There may continue to be stakeholders who would have preferred a different recommendation. The recommendations listed are from the Montreal meeting only and they may not reflect the final recommendations as the final recommendations will be a compilation of all stakeholder consultation meetings. 1. Approvals Measurement Canada should continue to approve all new devices (including updates and revisions) prior to trade use. Measurement Canada should continue to engage in the recognition of regulatory organizations in other countries provided that they perform work to Measurement Canada standards and as long as Measurement Canada still remains accountable. Measurement Canada should also continue to pursue its role of becoming a recognized international approval body. Note: The group discussed Measurement Canada’s involvement in the development of the international standards issued by Organisation internationale de métrologie légale (International Organization of Legal Metrology). The International Organization of Legal Metrology standard R117 may be adopted by Measurement Canada and would facilitate the recognition of other international approval laboratories for approvals. The point was raised that Measurement Canada should be proud of the fact that they are a leader in the volumetric approval process and should make it known to all Canadians. 2. Initial Inspection Initial inspections should continue to be conducted before weighing or measuring devices are used in trade. Initial inspections should be done either at the factory or in the field as long as the devices comply to all Measurement Canada requirements before use in trade. Initial inspections should be conducted by Measurement Canada, accredited or registered authorized serviced providers. Individuals performing initial inspections must be competent and monitored by Measurement Canada. Note: Some stakeholders voiced a concerned with having two types of initial inspections. Measurement Canada explained the rational of having two types of initial inspections and that current data showed no significant problems between factory and the field initial inspections. A few stakeholders, with their own data, agreed with Measurement Canada. Measurement Canada, in cooperation with three manufacturers / importers of fuel dispensers, is conducting a study to determine any problems associated with factory initial inspections. It was also stated by Measurement Canada that some specific, installation sensitive, devices are identified as such and are only initially inspected in the field. Alternative Service Delivery Presentation: Mr. Roger Alarie from Measurement Canada, Innovative Services Directorate, provided the group with a detailed explanation of the differences between the two possible models of alternative service delivery mechanisms which are the accreditation program and the registration program. Notes: Some stakeholders were of the opinion that the registration program, not having a quality management system in place, should only be used for subsequent inspections and not for initial inspections. It was then clarified that all requirements are the same for both models (standards used, inspection procedures, training of technicians). Most stakeholders, including consumer representatives, were in agreement that both models of alternate service delivery mechanisms could be used because both are equally capable of providing the same level of service and that both models would be strictly monitored by Measurement Canada making them equally acceptable. The organization size and business activities will dictate which model to choose from. It was stressed that a major difference between models was that in order for an organization to register with Measurement Canada, the registration program must have been accepted, as a model of alternate service delivery, in the sector in which an organization wants to do business. 3. Subsequent Inspection A consensus was reached that a mandatory subsequent inspection cycle should be implemented but no consensus could be reached on the frequency of this inspection. The use of alternate service delivery mechanisms, more specifically the accreditation and registration program, are accepted by the stakeholders as long as Measure Canada can assure a suitable monitoring program and that both models have the same level of confidence to assure good measurement at the end. Notes: There was no agreement on a frequency of mandatory inspection. Although the major oil companies and repair/manufacturers would accept a three year mandatory subsequent inspection cycle, the consumers groups would not. Consumer groups were willing to accept two years as a starting point. When the mandatory subsequent inspection cycle is implemented, it was suggested that the first calibration performed on a device could become an inspection and therefore the start of the subsequent inspection cycle. The inspection frequency may change, pending results from stakeholders’ input and sector monitoring. The inspection frequency should be defined so the period of time between inspection is clear to all stakeholders. The inspection frequency is defined as a minimum requirement. No decisions were made on whether the inspection frequency should be based on a calendar period or expiry date from the last inspection. This should be clear in the definition. In the situation where a Measurement Canada authorized service provider conducts an inspection before the established cycle end date, it should be acknowledged as an inspection and should re-start a new cycle. The truck meter inspection frequency could be aligned with the Downstream Petroleum sector frequency. The consensus of the participants was that truck mounted meters are generally calibrated annually, if not more frequently, in most cases. 4. Standards Standards used by accredited or registered service providers to inspect legal for trade devices on behalf of Measurement Canada should be calibrated and certified. Measurement Canada should continue to pursue the delegation of authority for service providers to calibrate and certify measurement standards on behalf of Measurement Canada. Measurement Canada should also continue to pursue the recognition of other international standards laboratories. Note: The stakeholders wanted to have assurances that Measurement Canada would have controls in place to ensure that proper calibrations and certifications are performed. It was recommended that Measurement Canada be the final authority in the recognition of standards. 5. Alternate Service Delivery Two alternative service delivery mechanisms where accepted by stakeholders for initial and subsequent inspections of legal for trade devices in the Retail Petroleum Sector:
Authorized service providers may choose either model in order to perform inspections on behalf of Measurement Canada. Note: It was noted here that other alternative service delivery mechanisms were discussed and commented on in the inspection, approval and standard recommendation discussions. 6. Monitoring Measurement Canada should continue to monitor and report on the retail petroleum trade sector through compliance rates, percentage of substantiated complaints, and stakeholder input. This information should be transmitted in a manner that can be easily accessed and understood by consumers. Note: Historical data should be posted on Measurement Canada’s internet site to indicate how the sector is performing within a certain time line. This would help to evaluate the sector. It was suggested that Measurement Canada specify the degree of measurement errors to give a better outlook of the degree of error versus compliance rate. It was suggested that Measurement Canada include definitions to explain the measurement and non-measurement errors. It was also indicated that the toll-free number on the verification stickers will help Measurement Canada to achieve better monitoring. 7. Commodity Inspections Measurement Canada should still maintain its commodity inspection program. Note: It was suggested that the “weigh-in/ weigh-out” method of selling bottled propane be the only acceptable method of sale. Signage could be used on site to indicate the method used to weigh/sell propane. 8. Complaints Measurement Canada should continue to be responsible for the investigation of all valid complaints reported to them. Measurement Canada must increase awareness of its existence in terms of their role in the resolution of complaints. A toll-free telephone number adjacent to the name Measurement Canada, should be added to all inspection stickers used by Measurement Canada, and accredited/registered service providers. Note: Some stakeholders suggested that Measurement Canada implement a pilot project for the toll-free number to see if consumers become more aware of Measurement Canada. It was suggested that the majority of oil companies try to resolve complaints with consumers first and then will direct the consumer to contact Measurement Canada if the complaint cannot be resolved. Closing Remarks: Gilles Pelletier briefly went over the discussion points, thanked everyone for their participation and asked if they would fill out the session evaluation form. Randy Latta explained the next steps in the review process. Gilles Vinet gave a closing remark and a final acknowledgment of thanks to all participants. Participants: The following people were present at the meeting in Montreal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
| Created: 2005-08-04 Updated: 2005-12-02 |
 Top of Page |
Important Notices
|
||