The Regulations Amending the Explosives Regulations, 2013 (#2 Port Surveys and other minor amendments) were published in Part II of the Canada Gazette on November 14, 2018. The amendment is accessible through the following URL:
Proposed amendments and accompanying Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) were posted in Canada Gazette, Part I, on December 02, 2017 for a 30-day consultation period. During that time, a request was sent to the Canadian stakeholder community requesting that they review the proposal and submit any comments, concerns or questions to the ESSB. Responses and a number of requests for clarification were received from seven stakeholders, mainly Canadian companies and associations.
Following consideration of these comments, minor revisions have been made and are now reflected in the final regulations. Details are provided in the Regulatory Impact Assessment Analysis found in the link above.
Summary of questions and comments received and response from ERD.
|No.||Your Questions/Comments||Replies From ERD|
|1||Section 196 (6.1)
Many road side / en route mechanical issues are tire related. The reference to “no power tools” would disallow the use of an air jack and air gun. These are an effective means of providing for the safe roadside removal / replacement of a tire. We recommend alignment with wording similar to the unchanged section 98 (7).
|Agreed, the proposed subsection 196 (6.1) was deleted. Section 196 (6) already states the safety principles that must be met before any repairs can be conducted and aligns with current section 98 (7). Safety objectives are met with the language in section 196 (6).|
|2||Section 203.1 (3)
The referenced ½ hour waiting time is not representative of industry best practice. The logistics of timing a load of explosives to arrive at port within the allotted ½ hour window is not realistic. Note that many ports require dangerous goods to arrive more than a ½ hour before departure to allow for barge preparation and loading.
|A teleconference with an industry association and Transport Canada was held February 15, 2018. It was clarified to industry that the 30-minutes waiting time does not reflect the requirement to arrive at a port within 30 minutes, but rather it is the maximum waiting time for an explosives truck being at "dockside" (as per dictionary definition). There is no change in policies and practices (when the same requirement was stated in the CFTR regulations). The industry accepted the clarification. The Canada Gazette I proposal meets safety considerations as well as the industry's operational requirements.|
|3||Section 203.1 (5)(a)
What is the means for methodology approval?
|In accordance with ER, 2013, s.203.1 (6) the Chief Inspector of Explosives is responsible for the approval of a methodology to be used in a quantified risk assessment (QRA). This entails ensuring that the methodology is capable of accurately calculating the risks to people and property resulting from loading and unloading of explosives at ports or wharves according to the criteria of s.203.1 (6). The approval of methodologies may include consultation with industry stakeholders, explosives specialists, and case studies.|
|4||Section 203.1 (5)(a) & 203.1 (7)
What is the expected timeline for an inspector to review and approve/deny a QRA?
|95% of decisions on applications will be made within 60 days of receipt of the application when all required information is present.|
|5||Will an approved methodology receive any sort of formal approval, such as “Certificate of Derogation Methodology?”||An approved methodology will be stated in the QRA guidelines.|
|6||Section 203.1 (5)(b)
What qualifies a person to conduct quantified risk assessments?
|A QRA must be carried out by a qualified person. A qualified person must have knowledge of explosives properties and behaviors, their hazard classifications, and handling best practices. They must also have knowledge of the packaging methods of commercial explosives. A qualified person must have knowledge and experience in the conduct of QRAs for the handling of explosives and have training on the specific QRA methodology being used.|
|7||Section 203.1 (5)(b)
It would be helpful to have a definition of the term or a more detailed explanation of the type of requirements that ESSB might be deemed “safety measures.”
|Safety measures will be predominantly location specific (for example, the limitations of activities to coincide with reduced traffic i.e. loading does not occur during rush hour).
For further guidance see QRA guidelines or contact ERD.
What is the treatment of fireworks at ports (1.3 & 1.4)? We think that the quantity of 1.4 fireworks at ports should be unlimited.
|Fireworks properly classified for transport will be considered using an approved methodology for the preparation of a QRA in accordance with s.201.1. Removing limits of fireworks loaded or unloaded from ports has not been a concern and was not considered.|
Are all QRA methodologies potentially acceptable?
|All QRA methodologies are potentially acceptable, provided it can be demonstrated that they can meet the requirements of the Regulations. For further guidance see QRA guidelines or contact ERD.|
Will QDP be still permitted?
|ER, 2013 s.203.1 requires a quantified risk assessment prepared using an approved methodology. Approved methodologies including more conservative consequence based methods are described in the QRA guideline.|
Is AN included in the QRA required by ER, 2013?
|Only AN that is in close proximity to explosives would be included in the QRA. For further guidance, contact ERD.|
How will explosives in transit without (un)loading be covered?
|ER, 2013 S.203.1 does not apply to a vessel that is in-transit and does not load or unload explosives.|