平成 28 年度火薬類国際化対策事業報告書平成28年度経済産業省委託事業...

平成 2８年度経済産業省委託事業

平成 28 年度火薬類国際化対策事業報告書

平成 29 年 2 月

公益社団法人全国火薬類保安協会

実施報告書

１．事業目的

火薬類（火薬、爆薬、火工品）は、その有する爆発・燃焼という危険性から、火薬類

取締法において、製造、販売、貯蔵、運搬、消費その他の取扱いについて規制されてい

る｡

本事業では、保安規制の国際化への検討に必要な以下の事業を実施し、火薬類による

災害を防止し、公共の安全を確保することを目的とする。

２．事業内容

火薬類の保安等に関する国際会議（国際連合危険物輸送専門家小委員会※1）や、Ｉ

ＳＯ／ＴＣ２６４※２など、これら国際会議で議論される火薬類の国際的な保安に関す

る技術基準の動向等の情報を、会議へ参画することなどにより聴取し、さらには、火薬

類取締法における対応策の検討を行うための資料をまとめた。

なお、国際連合危険物輸送専門家小委員会へは専門家を派遣し情報等を収集した。

※１国際連合危険物輸送専門家小委員会：火薬類、ガス、可燃性物質、毒物等の輸送

における安全性確保のため、危険物の管理方法及び危険物を収納する容器に関する

規定を検討する国連の専門家会合。当該会議結果は「国連危険物輸送勧告」とし

て、危険物の運送に係る海運又は航空機輸送等の国際的な規制に反映される｡

※２ＩＳＯ／ＴＣ２６４(「Fireworks(花火)」(花火に関する規格委員会))：世界の

玩具煙火の多くを生産している中国が、玩具煙火における様々な国際基準を定める

べく立ち上げた委員会。当該委員会で定められた保安等を含む技術基準が煙火の世

界的な標準となることから、現在、業界や関係機関、更には火薬類取締法において

厳格に担保されている保安に関する技術基準とそれらとの適正化を図ることが国内

外の保安や我が国の公共の安全の確保において極めて重要。

３．実施方法

火薬類保安規制の国際化及び技術基準の適正化、煙火分野の国際標準の適正化に向

け、国際連合危険物輸送専門家小委員会（平成 28年度は、ジュネーブで第 49回は 6月

27日～7月 6日、第 50回は 11月 28日～12月 6日に開催された。）に我が国の火薬類

の専門家を派遣し、国連の「危険物輸送基準勧告※３」に示された火薬類の分類試験方

法や、新たな技術基準の策定作業に参画し、火薬類保安規制の国際化や技術基準の適正

化を図るための情報整理を行った。本年は、かねてより日本から提案している閃光組成

物分類試験方法が第 50回国際連合危険物輸送専門家小委員会で採択された。あわせて同

委員会に参画している各国メンバーからＩＳＯ／ＴＣ２６４への各国の対応状況等、煙

火の国際標準化に関する情報を収集した。専門家は、委員会への出席後、それらについ

て得た火薬類の運搬に係る国際的な規制状況や判定基準、新たな試験方法の検討状況、

煙火の国際標準化等についてそれぞれ取りまとめ、報告書を作成した。

※３危険物輸送基準勧告：国際的な危険物の輸送における安全性を確保するために国

際連合より出されている勧告。

目次

１．はじめに・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・２．関係国際会議の概要・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・２.１危険物輸送に関する国連勧告の沿革・・・・・・・・・・・・・２.２化学品の国際管理（GHS）に関する沿革・・・・・・・・・・・・２.３ SCE TDG及び SCE GHSにおける案件の検討サイクル・・・・・・３．国連勧告の最新版等・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・３.１危険物の輸送等に関する国連勧告・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

(1) 国連勧告：附属書-モデル規則・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ (2) 国連勧告：分類試験及び判定基準マニュアル・・・・・・・・

３.２ GHSに関する国連勧告・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・４．CE TDG & GHS等の動きについて・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

(1) 第 8回 CETDG＆GHS ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ (2) 第 49回及び第 50回 SCE TDG ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ (3) 第 31回及び第 32回 SCE GHS ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ (4) 国連勧告と国内法規等との調和・・・・・・・・・・・・・

５．我が国の火薬類等に関する国際化対応について・・・・・・・・・ (1) 国際化への対応組織等について・・・・・・・・・・・・・ (2) GHS関係省庁連絡会議・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

６．平成 28年度・SCE TDG及び SCE GHSの審議内容・・・・・・・・・６.１第 49回・SCE TDGにおける審議状況・・・・・・・・・・・・・

(1) 日本からの火薬類関係者等の参加者・・・・・・・・・・・ (2) 開催期日及び場所・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ (3) SCE TDGでの主として火薬類作業部会での審議状況

及びその結果・・・・・・･･･・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ (4) 個別案件の審議結果・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・･・

６.２第 50回・SCE TDGにおける審議状況・・・・・・・・・・・・・ (1) 日本からの火薬類関係者等の参加者・・・・・・・・・・・ (2) 開催期日及び場所・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ (3) SCE TDGでの主として火薬類作業部会での審議状況及び

その結果・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ (4) 個別案件の審議結果・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

６.３第 31回・SCE GHSにおける審議状況・・・・・・・・・・・・ (1) 日本からの火薬類関係者等の参加者・・・・・・・・・・・ (2) 開催期日及び場所・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ (3) SCE GHSでの審議状況及びその結果・・・・・・・・・・・・・ (4) 個別案件の審議結果・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

６.４第 32回・SCE GHSにおける審議状況・・・・・・・・・・・・ (1) 日本からの火薬類関係者等の参加者・・・・・・・・・・・ (2) 開催期日及び場所・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ (3) SCE GHSでの審議状況及びその結果・・・・・・・・・・・・・ (4) 個別案件の審議結果・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

７．2017年度（平成 29年度）・国連会議の開催日程・・・・・・・・・８．ISO/TC264活動報告・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・付録

IGUS会議について・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

１１１１２３３３３３４４４６６６６７７７８８８８８１２１２１２

１２１２１５１５１５１５１５１５１５１５１５１５１６１６１８

参考資料参考資料 No.１火薬類国際化対応委員会・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

参考資料 No.２危険物等会場運送国際基準検討委員会等・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

参考資料 No.３第 49回 TDG小委員会報告書・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

参考資料 No.４ US式及び HSL式閃光組成物の装置、材料および判定基準に関する提案の採択内容の確認

ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/96/Add.1(事務局) ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

参考資料 No.５ケーネン試験に関する試験結果

ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/6 (ドイツ) ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

参考資料 No.６試験及び判定基準マニュアルにおける標準雷管の新規構造提案の支援資料

ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/10（ドイツ）・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

参考資料 No.７ケーネン試験におけるジブチルフタレート（DBP）置き換えの提案

ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/13 (フランス) ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

参考資料 No.８ GHSの 2.1章の見直し、

ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/7 - SG/AC.10/C.4/2016/2（AEISG）・・・

参考資料 No.９ GHSの 2.1.3節の改訂

ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/47 - ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2016/10（SAAMI）・・・

参考資料 No.１０特別規定 347の追加登録

ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/18 (カナダ）・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

参考資料 No.１１試験及び判定基準マニュアルにおける 1.1.2節の改正 ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/19

(IME)・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

参考資料 No.１２硝酸アンモニウム系肥料の分類の明確化ーモデル規則並びに試験及び判定基準マニュ

アルにおける改正案）

ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/30 - ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2016/6 （AEISG、SAAMI）・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

参考資料 No.１３少量クラス 1物品の輸送に適用される規定の改正

ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/31 (SAAMI) ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

参考資料 No.１４ GHSにおける鈍感化火薬類の分類判定基準の明確化

ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/30 - ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2016/6

（AEISG、SAAMI）・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

参考資料 No.１５火薬類のセキュリティー表示に関する統一国際基準

UN/SCETDG/49/INF.35（IME）・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

参考資料 No.１６同上

UN/SCETDG/49/INF.67（英国及び米国）・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

参考資料 No.１７第 50回 TDG小委員会報告書・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

参考資料 No.１８第 47, 48及び 49回に採択された改定案の統合リスト ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/55 Appendix 7（事務局)・・・・・・・・・・・・・

参考資料 No.１９モデル規則第 2.1章のクラス１の定義、及び GHS第 2.1章の火薬類のクラスの定義にお

けるカンマの除去

ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/53 - ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2016/14(AEISG) ・・・・・・

参考資料 No.２０試験及び判定基準マニュアル 10.3.3節の改正提案

ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/60 (Sweden, AEISG)・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

参考資料 No.２１更なる試験のためのエネルギー物質の輸送

ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/61 （CEFIC）・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

参考資料 No.２２硝酸アンモニウム系肥料の分類の明確化－試験及び判定基準マニュアルにおける新 39

節の提案

ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/66（スウェーデン）・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

参考資料 No.２３ GHSの状況を考慮した試験及び判定基準マニュアルの使用

ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/83- ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2016/16 火薬専門部会議長・・

参考資料 No.２４第 31回 GHS小委員会報告・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

参考資料 No.２５第 32回 GHS小委員会報告・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

参考資料 No.２６第 GHS第 2.1章「爆発物」の見直し

UN/SCETDG/50/INF.11 - UN/SCEGHS/32/INF.8 (スウェーデン)・・・・・・

参考資料 No.２７同上

UN/SCETDG/50/INF.18 - UN/SCEGHS/32/INF.15 (米国) ・・・・・・・・・

参考資料 No.２８ ISO/TC264 活動報告・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

付録 2016年（平成 28年度）IGUS 会議の状況について付録資料 No.1 ＥＯＳ報告・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

付録資料 No.2 ＥＰＰ報告・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

１９

２０

２２

３０

３７

３９

４３

４５

４９

５８

６０

６２

７０

７３

７６

８０

８１

１００

１０５

１０８

１１２

１２３

１３６

１３８

１４３

１４５

１６２

１６７

１７２

１７６

1

１．はじめに

本報告書は、2016年（平成 28年）度の火薬類等に関する国際化の動向についてその概要を

まとめたものである。

なお、本報告書は、毎年とりまとめている「火薬類国際化対策事業報告書」あるいは「国際

化対策事業報告書」のうち、国際会議の沿革、目的等についての記述内容を一部抜粋または重

複している項目並びに重複部分を簡略して記載している項目もある。

火薬類の国際化に関する動向については、2002 年（平成 14 年）に社団法人全国火薬類保安

協会(現公益社団法人全国火薬類保安協会)に設置された「火薬類国際化対応委員会」におい

て、関係所管官庁と緊密に連携をとりながら、主に危険物輸送に関する国連勧告等に係る国際

会議の動向の調査・検討を行い、その結果を、一般社団法人日本海事検定協会に設置されてい

る「危険物等海上運送国際基準検討委員会」及び「危険物 UN対応部会」の承認を得て、火薬

類等に関する我が国の意見等として国際会議に反映させている。危険物輸送等に係る国際会議

において議決権を有する日本代表者は以下のとおりである。

なお、火薬類に関しては、関係する国連の本委員会と同時並行して開催される「火薬類作業

部会」にて審議等が行われることが多いので、日本代表者を補佐するため「火薬類国際化対応

委員会」の委員を毎年派遣している。

SCE TDG ：濵田高志氏（一般社団法人日本海事検定協会安全技術センター）

SCE GHS ：城内博氏（日本大学大学院理工学研究科）

CE TDG & GHS ：濵田高志氏( 同上 )

２．関係国際会議の概要

２.１危険物輸送に関する国連勧告の沿革

国連経済社会理事会（以下「ECOSOC」という。）は、1953年にその下部機関として危険物輸

送専門家委員会（以下「CETDG」という。）を設置し、国際間の危険物の安全輸送のため、危

険物の国際間輸送基準の策定を行うことを決議し、その策定結果のまとめを「危険物の輸送に

関する勧告（通称：オレンジブック。以下「国連勧告」という。）」として出版している。こ

の国連勧告は、以後 2年ごとに改正がなされている。

関係国際機関（例えば、IMO、ICAO及び IAEA等）及び各国は、自国等の多モードの危険物輸

送規則にこの勧告を反映させ、改正された国連勧告との調和を図っている。

その後 CE TDGは、化学品の危険有害性について、輸送だけでなく人の健康、環境等の保護

を対象とした分野にも広げて検討することが採択され、2001年に、化学品の分類及び表示の世

界的調和を図るためのシステム（以下「GHS」という。）を構築するため改組され、CE TDGは

「危険物輸送及び分類調和専門家委員会（以下「CE TDG & GHS」という。）」となった。ま

た、その下に「危険物輸送専門家小委員会（以下「SCE TDG」という。）」及び「化学品の分

類及び表示の世界的調和システム専門家小委員会（以下「SCE GHS」という。）」が設置され

た。

SCE TDGでは、危険物の安全輸送等に関する案件の検討、基準の策定及び決定等を行ってお

り、また、GHSについては、危険有害性のうち物理化学的危険性に関する案件のみを検討及び

基準（案）を策定し、この基準(案)が SCE GHSに答申され SCE GHS で決定される。最終的には

1回/2年開催される CE TDG & GHSにて 2年間の全ての決定事項が承認され、国連勧告に反映

される。

２.２化学品の国際管理（GHS）に関する沿革

化学品の危険有害性に関する分類と表示の世界的統一は､1989年の第 76回 ILO総会でインド

からの提案に端を発し、1992年にリオデジャネイロで開催された国連環境開発会議(UNCED)に

2

おいて、その議題 21(Agenda 21)「持続可能な開発を実現するための国際的合意」の第 19章

「危険有害物の不法な国際取引の防止を含む有害化学物質の適正な管理」を実行するための７

つのプログラムが採択されたことに始まる。有害化学品の分類及び表示の統一はプログラム B

として位置付けられた。

1992年に UNCEDで定められた「化学品の分類及び表示の統一」の目標は、“ 物質安全デー

タシート及び簡単に理解できる記号表示等も含めた、地球規模で調和した危険有害性の分類及

び表示システムを、可能であれば 2000年までに利用できるようにする ”ことであった。

なお、2002年にヨハネスブルクで開催された「持続可能な開発に関する世界首脳サミット」

で、“ 2008年までに GHSを完全に実施する行動計画 ”が再採択された。

1995年に IOMC(Inter-Organization Program for Sound Management of Chemicals[化学品

の健全管理のための組織間プログラム])が設立され、国連欧州経済委員会（UNECE）、世界保

健機関（WHO）、国際労働機関（ILO）等の国際機関が参加して、目標達成に向けた具体的な検

討が開始された。SCE GHSは、この検討結果を集約し、その実行及び管理を担当することとな

り、2002年に第１回の SCE GHSが開催された。以後、SCE GHSにおいて検討が行われ、その結

果、2003年に「化学品の分類及び表示の世界的調和システム（GHS）」の国連勧告（通称：パ

ープルブック）初版が出版された。

SCE GHS では、第 2 改訂版が出版されてからは、物理化学的危険性案件に関する審議事項が

極めて少ない。これは GHSに係る物理化学的危険性については、分類、表示等の仕組みが TDG

の仕組みを殆どそのまま取り入れているためである。後述する「火薬類国際化対応委員会」で

は、GHS案件のうち火薬類に係る物理化学的危険性についてのみ検討している。

物理化学的危険性に係る案件は、SCE TDG で審議することになっていることから、原則とし

て同じ案件が SCE TDG にも提案される。SCE GHS の指示を受けた後に SCE TDG で審議し、その

結果を SCE GHS に報告する。SCE GHS は、その結果を原則として採択（最終結論についての

み）するシステムとなっている。また、中間的審議結果については報告を受け、検討の方向性

の承認あるいはコメント等をすることになっている。

GHSの表示に関する国連勧告には、ラベル要素の指定、ピクトグラム（シンボルマーク、表

示図形の枠、色等）、注意喚起語、ラベル表示、物質安全データシート等が規定され、GHS の

国連勧告附属書に具体的に規定されている。このため、輸送に関する表示及び GHS に関する

表示の 2種類を行わなければならない。

我が国における GHS に係る案件の検討、実行については、2001 年に設置された GHS関係省

庁連絡会議が中心となって化学物質の GHS分類等を進めている。2006 年 12月以降から労働安

全衛生法が改定され、GHSラベル表示、MSDS文書交付等の実行が鋭意進められ、現在に至って

いる。

２.３ SCE TDG及び SCE GHSにおける案件の検討サイクル

SCE TDG及び SCE GHSは、2年を 1サイクルとした作業計画（案）を策定し、最上位機関で

ある ECOSOCの定例委員会で承認を受け、その作業計画及び会議日程に基づき各種案件を検討

し、国連勧告等の改訂作業等を行う。

SCE TDG及び SCE GHSは、ジュネーブの国連欧州本部で、2回/1年、4回/1サイクル(2年)

開催され、4 回目の SCE TDG 及び SCE GHS に続いて CE TDG & GHS が 1 回開催され、2年間の

審議結果の改正案が最終的に採択される。本年度がこれに該当する。しかし、実質的な審議・

採択は、SCE TDG及び SCE GHSが行い、CE TDG & GHS がそれを自動的に承認しているのが実情

である。

その他、この期間内に加盟国専門家等による公式あるいは非公式作業部会が開催され、特定

案件に関する改正・新規提案作成の検討、提案事項の事前詳細検討等が行われ、SCE TDG及び

SCE GHSに報告し、審議にかける場合もある。火薬類に関しては、SCE TDGの指示により SCE

TDGと並行して開催される「火薬類作業部会」にて各案件が審議・仮採択等され、SCE TDGで

3

正式採択等がなされる例が少なくない。

2014年（平成 26 年）は、1サイクルの第 2年度として、SCE TDG は第 45回及び第 46回、

SCE GHSは第 27回及び第 28回の委員会が開催され、様々な提案事項等が審議された。これら

を反映して、2015年 12月に「分類試験及び判定基準マニュアル第 6版改訂版」及び 2015年 7

月に「モデル規則第 19版改訂版」が発行された。また、2015年 7月に「化学品の分類及び表

示の世界的調和システム（GHS）改訂 6版」が発行された。

2016年（平成 28 年）は、1サイクルの第 2年度として、SCE TDG は第 49回及び第 50回、

SCE GHSは第 31回及び第 32回の委員会が開催され、様々な提案事項等が審議された。2017年

には、「モデル規則第 20版改訂版」が発行される予定である。

３．国連勧告の最新版等

国連勧告に係る各種案件は、2年を 1サイクルとして審議し、新設・改正等の採択がなされ

ることから、国連勧告は 2年毎に更新される。更新の方法としては、新たな改訂版として勧告

されるか、改訂部分のみをまとめた Amendment として勧告されるかの 2つの方法がある。この

方法によって更新された現在の最新版は、次項のとおりである。

最新版の原文は、国連の HP(http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/danger.htm)にて閲覧する

ことができる。また、英和対訳本が化学工業日報社より出版されている（第 19版まで）。

３.１危険物の輸送等に関する国連勧告

(1) 国連勧告：附属書-モデル規則

勧告本文(数頁)及び付属書：危険物輸送に関するモデル規則（第 1 部～第 3 部）からなる第

Ⅰ巻とモデル規則（第 4 部～第 7 部）のみからなる第Ⅱ巻で構成されている。現在の最新版

は、第 19 改訂版（2015 年（平成 27年）7月）となる。

(2) 国連勧告：試験及び判定基準マニュアル

試験及び判定基準マニュアルは、危険物の分類に用いる判定基準、試験方法及び手順につい

て述べている。経済社会理事会の危険物輸送専門家委員会により、1984 年に初版が採択され

た。定期的に 2年に 1 回更新及び修正されている。現在、2001 年以来、CE TDG 及び CE GHS の

下で最新化されている。

試験及び判定基準マニュアルは、次の 3つに分けられている。

第 I部：クラス 1 の火薬類の分類に関するもの

第 II部：区分 4.1 の自己反応性物質及び区分 5.2の有機過酸化物の分類に関するもの

第 III 部：クラス 2、クラス 3、クラス 4、区分 5.1、クラス 8 又はクラス 9 の物質又は物品

の分類に関するもの

2004 年に、CE TDG 及び CE GHSは、新しく第 IV 部：輸送設備に係る試験方法を追加した。

第 6版改訂版（2014 年採択、2015 年発行）は、2011 年発行第 5 改訂版 Amendment 1 及び

2013 年発行同 Amendment 2及び第 17節を含むものである。

特に、第 6版改訂版において火薬関連で新たに記載された事項は次のものがある。

・第 13節試験 3(a)(vii)落つい試験方法の追加

・第 V 部：GHSに従った鈍感化爆薬の分類スキームの追加

３.２ GHSに関する国連勧告

危険有害性の情報伝達の国際的な包括的システムの導入によって、人の健康と環境等の保護

4

を強化し、危険有害性が適正に評価され、国際的に評価された化学品の国際貿易を奨励する等

を目的にした GHS に関する国連勧告は、2002 年 12 月に採択され、2003 年に初版が発行され、

以後 2年毎に改正されている。

改訂初版(2005年版)から、初版の第 3部が 2つに分離され、第 3部・健康に対する有害性、

第 4部・環境に対する有害性となった。また、ラベル要素の割り当て、MSDS作成指針等を具体

的に規定した附属書が新たに勧告されている。以後、2年毎に改訂版が発行され、2011年（平

成 23年）には第 4 改訂版(2011 年版)が発行された。

2013 年（平成 25 年）には第 5 改訂版(2013 年版)が発行され、2015 年（平成 27年）７月に

は第 6 改訂版(2015 年版)が発行された。これには、鈍感化爆薬の新しい危険クラスや、SDS

の第 9 項（物理的及び化学的性質）の追加情報等が盛り込まれている。この改訂版が最新版

となる。

４．CE TDG & GHS等の動きについて

(1) 第 8回 CE TDG & GHS

第 8回 CE TDG&GHS（2016年（平成 28年）12月 9日開催）は、平成 29年 3月頃に過去 2 年

間（平成 27年～28年）の業務実績報告及び次の 2年間（平成 29年～30年）の業務計画

（案）を上部機関（ECOSOC）に報告し、これを受けて上部機関は、2017年（平成 29年）7月

の定例委員会において採択したものを、国連決議［E/2017/XX］として公開される。

(2) 第 49回及び第 50回 SCE TDG

(2)-1 第 49回 SCE TDG（2016年（平成 28年）6月 27日～7月 6日開催）

第 49 回 SCE TDG では、火薬類に関する、13 件の案件が審議された。審議結果は、13 案件

のうち採択が 1件、修正確定（合意、承認）が 4件、再提案及び継続審議が 8 件であった。

（表-1）第 49回危険物輸送専門家小委員会火薬類関係個別対応及び結果一覧表

議題

番号文書番号提案国等文書標題対応備考・結果

1 C3/97 事務局暫定議題ー

2(a) C3/96/Add.1

Annex1 事務局第 48回 SCE TDG報告書

US式及び HSL式閃光組成物の装置、材料および判定基

準に関する提案の採択内容の確認

ー

修正のうえ

合意

2(c) C3/16/6 ドイツケーネン試験に関する試験結果適宜修正了承

2(c) C3/16/10 ドイツ試験及び判定基準マニュアルにおける標準雷管の新規

構造提案の支援資料適宜継続（次期

2年間）

2(c) C3/16/13 フランスケーネン試験におけるジブチルフタレート（DBP）置き

換えの提案賛成継続（問題

点の有無確

認）

2(h) C3/16/7

C4/16/2 AEISG GHSの 2.1章の見直し適宜再提案

2(h) C3/16/47

C4/16/10 SAAMI GHSの 2.1.3節の改訂適宜同上

2(i) C3/16/18 カナダ特別規定 347の追加登録適宜採択

2(i) C3/16/19 IME 試験及び判定基準マニュアルにおける 1.1.2節の改正賛成

方向

修正確定

5

議題


2(i) C3/16/29 スウェー

デン硝酸アンモニウム系肥料の分類の明確化ーモデル規則

並びに試験及び判定基準マニュアルにおける改正案適宜再提案

2(i) C3/16/31 SAAMI 少量クラス 1物品の輸送に適用される規定の改正適宜再提案

10

(g)

& 2

49/INF.4 and

Add.1-5 &

31/INF.3 and

Add.1-5

火薬 WG議

長

試験及び判定基準マニュアルの改訂 ― 継続

10

(i)

C3/16/30

C4/16/6

AEISG

SAAMI

GHSにおける鈍感化火薬類の分類判定基準の明確化賛成修正して承

認

― 49/INF.35

49/INF.67

IME

英国、米

国

火薬類のセキュリティー表示に関する統一国際基準

（前回からの継続）

― 第 50回

TDGで正式

提案

（注）上記表で薄灰色に塗りつぶした欄は、TDG 及び GHS での同一文書提案を示す。第 49 回危

険物輸送専門家小委員会（火薬類関係）では、4件あった。

(2)-2 第 50回 SCE TDG（2016年（平成 28年）11月 28日～12月 6日開催）

第 50 回 SCETDG は、火薬類関係の７件が審議された。審議結果は、修正・変更の決定が

5件、継続検討が 2件であった。

（表-2）第 50回危険物輸送専門家小委員会火薬関係個別対応及び結果一覧表

議題


1 C3/99 事務局暫定議題ー

1 C3/99/Add.1 事務局文書リストー

2(a) C3/16/55 事務局 47,48,49回に採択された改定案の統合リスト

US式閃光組成物試験法掲載されるが。未修正 1件、変

更部１件を確認した。

― 火薬 WG議

長に再修正

の依頼

2(b) C3/16/53

C4/16/14

AEISG モデル規則第 2.1章―クラス 1の定義定義

GHSの第 2.1章―火薬類のクラスの定義賛成合意

2(b) C3/16/60 AEISG 試験及び判定基準マニュアル 10.3.3節の改正提案適宜修正合意、

継続検討

（次期 2

年）

C3/16/13 フランスケーネン試験におけるジブチルフタレート（DBP）置き

換えの提案･･･第 49回の継続

賛成変更決定

2(b) C3/16/61 CEFIC 更なる試験のためのエネルギー物質の輸送適宜変更決定

2(b) C3/16/66 スウェーデ

ン

硝酸アンモニウム系肥料の分類の明確化―試験及び判

定基準マニュアルにおける新 39節の提案適宜修正決定

7(g) C3/16/83

C4/16/14 火薬議長 GHSでの試験及び判定基準マニュアルの使用 ― 継続検討

(次期 2年)

（注）上記表で薄灰色に塗りつぶした欄は、TDG 及び GHS での同一文書提案を示す。第 50 回

危険物輸送専門家小委員会（火薬類関係）では、2件あった。

6

(3) 第 31回及び第 32回 SCE GHS

(3)-1 第 31回 SCE GHS（ 7 月 5 日～ 7月 8日開催）

第 31 回 SCE GHS は、表－１に示す火薬類関係 4 件が審議された。審議状況は『6.1 第 49

回・SCE TDGにおける審議状況』に示した。

(3)-2 第 32回 SCE GHS（ 12月 7日～ 12 月 9日開催）

第 32 回 SCE GHS は、2-(2)の表－２に示す火薬類関係 2 件と下記の 1 件が審議された。審議

状況は『6.2 第 50 回・SCE TDG における審議状況』及び『6.4 第 32 回・SEC GHS における審

議状況』に示した。

議題


SCETDG/50/INF

11－SCEGHS

/32/INF8

SCETDG/50/INF

18－SCEGHS

/32/INF8

スウェーデ

ン

米国

GHS第 2.1章「爆発物」の見直し ― 継続検討

（次期 2 年

間）

(4) 国連勧告と国内法規等との調和

国連勧告の輸送要件は、勧告でありそれ自体法的拘束力を持たないので、このままでは国

際間輸送等が円滑に行われない恐れがある。これを避けるため、各国及び関係国際機関は、

国際海事機構（IMO）、鉄道による危険物の国際輸送に関する規則（RID）、道路による危険

物の国際輸送に関するヨーロッパ協定（ADR）、国際民間航空機構（ICAO）等の国際運送基

準、及び自国の危険物輸送規則に国連勧告を取り入れ、国際間の調和を図ると共に法的拘束

力を持たせるようにしている。この多モ－ドへの反映にはおおよそ 2 年を要する。従って、

勧告内容が拘束力を持つのは、おおよそ 2年後となる。

例えば、国連勧告の第 19 改訂版（2015 年版）に対応した海上輸送に係る国内法規の「危

険物船舶輸送及び貯蔵規則」の改正が、2016 年末又は 2017 年初頭に行われ、その施行によ

って法的に拘束力を持つことになるということである。

我が国では、海上及び航空輸送については調和されているが、火薬類を陸上輸送する場合

の包装等については、平成 10 年（1998 年）通商産業省告示にて国連危険物リストと整合性

が図られたものの、全てにおいて必ずしも調和されているとは言えない部分がある。

各国においても、国際的調和がかなり進んでいるとは言え、その歴史的観点から国連勧

告を尊重するものの、地理的要素、国内事情、各国所管官庁の保安行政等の考え方、仕組

み等により国連勧告と必ずしも調和していない面があるのはやむを得ないことであろう。従

って、我が国としては、特に陸上から海上/航空機輸送及びその逆の輸送等について、保安

を最重点として、円滑な流通等に支障のないよう柔軟な対応の必要がある。

平成 10 年（1998 年）通商産業省告示についても、2 年サイクルで「危険物船舶輸送及び

貯蔵規則」が改正されるので、それとの整合性について見直しをし、必要に応じて改正作業

を進めることが望ましい。

５．我が国の火薬類等に関する国際化対応について

(1) 国際化への対応組織等について

(1)-1 火薬類国際化対応委員会【参考資料 No.１参照】

SCETDG 等の国連会議における火薬類等に係る提案事項の事前検討、その他関連情報（例

えば、IGUS 会議の情報）の収集によって関係所管官庁に協力していくことを目的として、

2002 年（平成 14 年）6 月に社団法人全国火薬類保安協会(現公益社団法人全国火薬類保安

7

協会)に産学官で構成する「火薬類国際化対応委員会」を設置し、TDG 及び GHS（物理化学

的危険性のみについて。）の提案事項を検討し、意見をまとめている。

この委員会には、火薬類の製造、販売、消費に係る業界団体が参加しており、計 4 回/

年の会議(その内の 2 回は報告会)を開催し、委員を SCE TDG 等に派遣し、我が国の代表

者の技術的補佐、情報の収集及び意見等を反映させている。

委員会等開催日等検討事項等開催場所

第１回委員会 H28.6.1(水) 49 回 SCETDG 31 回 SCE GHS

会議の審議内容検討と委員

派遣決定

中央区

八丁堀区民館

第２回委員会 H28.7.27(水) 49 回 SCETDG 31 回 SCE

GHS 会議の審議内容報告及

び委員派遣決定並びに

IGUS-EPP 及び IGUS-EOS 会

議内容報告

中央区

八丁堀区民館

第３回委員会 H28.11.14(月) 50 回 SCETDG 32 回 SCE GHS

会議の審議内容検討

中央区

八丁堀区民館

第４回委員会 H29.1.24(火) 50 回 SCETDG 32 回 SCE GHS

会議の審議内容報告他

中央区

八丁堀区民館

(1)-2 危険物等海上運送国際基準検討委員会等【参考資料 No.２参照】

SCETDG に関しては、一般社団法人日本海事検定協会の「危険物等海上運送国際基準検討

委員会」が中心となり、火薬類を含めた全ての危険物等に係る SCETDG への提案内容につ

いての意見をとりまとめ、その結果を踏まえて SCE TDG で我が国代表者が意見を述べ、

採択等の議決権を行使している。

｢火薬類国際化対応委員会」は、火薬類に関する提案の事前検討を行い、その結果を、

「危険物等海上運送国際基準検討委員会」の下部機関である「危険物 UN 対応部会」に反

映させる。そしてこの部会の結論は、「危険物等海上運送国際基準検討委員会」にて検討

され、当該委員会の承認を得て SCETDGに反映されている。

(2) GHS関係省庁連絡会議

SCE GHS については、火薬類に関しては GHS 関係省庁連絡会議（厚生労働省事務局）

に反映されている。我が国代表者の補佐として火薬類国際化対応委員会の委員が出席して

いる。我が国における GHS の実行については、2001 年（平成 13 年）に設置された GHS 関

係省庁連絡会議が中心となって化学物質の GHS 分類等を進めており、その分類結果は、独

立行政法人製品評価技術基盤機構 GHS分類結果データベースに掲載されている。

2006 年（平成 18 年）12 月以降から実行が具体的に進められ、GHS ラベルの表示、MSDS

文書交付等に係る労働安全衛生法等の関係法規が改正され、関係する化学品を中心に、そ

の実行が鋭意進められ、現在に至っている。

６．平成 28年度・SCE TDG及び SCE GHSの審議内容

6.1 第 49回・SCE TDG における審議状況

(1) 日本からの火薬類関係者等の参加者は、以下のとおりである。

一般社団法人日本海事検定協会：濱田委員

国立研究開発法人産業技術総合研究所：薄葉委員他

（火薬類作業部会と本委員会が並行して行われ、火薬類作業部会には薄葉委員が審議に出

席し、本委員会にも出席した。）

8

(2) 開催期日及び場所：2016 年（平成 28年）6 月 27日～ 7月 6日

（スイス・ジュネーブ）

(3) SCE TDGでの主として火薬類作業部会での審議状況及びその結果については、「第 49回

TDG小委員会報告」【参考資料№ ３】を参照のこと。

(4) 個別案件の審議結果

第 49 回 SCE TDG では、火薬類に関する、13 件の案件が審議された。審議結果は、13 案件

のうち採択が 1 件、修正確定（合意、承認）が 4 件、再提案及び継続審議が 8 件であっ

た。

なお、正式提案及びそれに係る非公式文書 (INF.) 等の原文については、国連の

HP(http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/danger.htm)にて閲覧できる。

(4)-1 US 式及び HSL 式閃光組成物の装置、材料および判定基準に関する提案の採択内容の確

認

【参考資料 No.４参照】

① 関係書類： ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/96/Add.1 (事務局）

② 提案等の概要

昨年の第 48 回 TDG 小委員会において日本の提案文書が審議され、幾つかの修正を経て

採択されたが、提案内容は一旦保留の状態で、レポート文書（ST/SG/AC.10

/C.3/96/Add.1、Annex 1）に収録された。火薬 WG において、日本は US 試験法の記述の中

の”lifting”を“propellant”に修正され、保留を外すことが合意された。

③ 審議結果 ― 修正のうえ合意。

(4)-2 ケーネン試験に関する試験結果

【参考資料 No.５参照】

① 関係書類： ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/6（ドイツ）

UN/SCETDG/49/INF.27（ドイツ）


第 47 回 TDG において、ドイツからケーネン試験の鋼管の品質要求［鋼管破壊圧力を 28

MPa ± 4 MPa に修正］としているが、従来の 30 MPa ± 3 MPa を包含していないため、圧

力範囲を 29 MPa ± 4 MPa にシフトする修正を加えて、本提案が了承された。

③ 審議結果 ― 修正了承。

(4)-3 試験及び判定基準マニュアルにおける標準雷管の新規構造提案の支援資料

【参考資料 No.６参照】

① 関係書類： ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/10 （ドイツ）

UN/SCETDG/49/INF.36 (IME)


第 47 回 TDG において標準雷管（欧州型）の設計の修正をドイツが提案し、多大な支持

を得た。今回、水中爆発試験を行い、新旧デザインがほぼ等しい爆発エネルギーを持つこ

とが示された。一方 IME は、米国型と欧州型の 2 種類の標準雷管を統一して、より単純化

された標準雷管の検討を行ってきた。

9

③ 審議結果 ― 火薬 WG としては統一型標準雷管の開発の方向性を支持しつつ、各種議論

のため、火薬 WG は、ドイツと IME が協力し、次期 2 年期で統一型標準雷管を完成させる

よう要請した

(4)-4 ケーネン試験におけるジブチルフタレート（DBP）置き換えの提案

【参考資料 No.７参照】

① 関係書類： ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/13 (フランス)


ケーネン試験の加熱速度を校正するために使用される DBP は、EU 内では REACH 規則で

一般使用が禁止されている。そこでフランスでは DBP の代替としてシリコンオイルに変更

するよう提案された。

③ 審議結果 ― 火薬 WG はフランスが提案したシリコンオイルに合意したが、シリコンオ

イルは、メーカーによって性質が異なる恐れがあるので、次期 TDG までに有志国間でラウ

ンドロビン試験を行い、問題点の有無を確認することになった。継続審議。

(4)- 5 GHSの 2.1章の見直し、GHSの 2.1.3節の改訂

【参考資料 No.８、９参照】

① 関係書類： ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/7 - SG/AC.10/C.4/2016/2（AEISG）

ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/47 - ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2016/10（SAAMI）

UN/SCETDG/49/INF.15 - UN/SCEGHS/31/INF.5（AEISG）

UN/SCETDG/49/INF.45 - UN/SCEGHS/31/INF.12（カナダ）

UN/SCETDG/49/INF.37 - UN/SCEGHS/31/INF.10（スウェーデン）

UN/SCEGHS/31/INF.22（火薬 WG 議長）


本案件はオーストラリアが 2014年の第 24回 GHSに提出した提案（UN/

SCEGHS/27/INF.20）が出発点になっており、その目的は、GHSの中の 2.1章「爆発物」が

TDGの分類をそのまま使っており、輸送容器が無い状態の火薬類の製造、貯蔵、消費等に

おける分類に対応できていないため、輸送以外にも使えるように見直してほしいというも

のであった。

火薬 WG では、爆発物の製造から消費までの各段階に対する GHS の適用範囲があいまい

なため、これを明確化する必要があるとの認識で、火薬 WG と TDG 全体会議においては、

上記のアイデアを基に、非公式 WG で更に議論を進めることが合意された。

GHS では、本議論はまだ進行中であるので、委員からの意見を集約して、次回に向け

て提案文書を作成していくことになった。

③ 審議結果 ― 継続審議。

(4)- 6 特別規定 347の追加登録

【参考資料 No.１０参照】

① 関係書類： ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/18 （カナダ）


第 45 回小委員会で、IME と SAAMI は、試験及び判定基準マニュアルの図 10.3 と図 10.8 に

ボックス 33「包装品の外部に危険な影響が表れるか」の前にボックス 32a「特別規定 347 を

適用するか」を追加した。今回追加品目の提案があった。

10

③ 審議結果 ― 火薬 WGは全員一致で本提案を採択した。その結果、UN 0349、0367、

0384及び 0481に特別規定 347が割り当てられ、6(d)試験の対象になることが確定した。

(4)- 7 試験及び判定基準マニュアルにおける 1.1.2節の改正

【参考資料 No.１１参照】

① 関係書類： ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/19 (IME)


危険物の種類によっては、それらの分類の責任が申請者（製造業者、配送業者、輸入業

者、使用者など）にある場合と、クラス１のように、分類の責任が主管庁にある場合があ

る。この観点からすると、現在、試験及び判定基準マニュアル（試験マニュアル）の 1.1.2

節にある“testing authority”という表現は、試験実施機関が危険物の分類について責任を

持つと誤解される恐れがある。この誤解を防ぐため、試験マニュアル 1.1.2 節の 2 番目の文

章と、付録 6 の 2.3 節の 2 番目の文章の“testing authority”を“testing body”に置き換え、

分類についての責任の記述を削除するという提案である。

③ 審議結果 ― 火薬 WGは“testing body”が適切な表現であることに合意した。ま

た”competence”の意味が、主管庁：”competence authority”と混同される可能性があることを

受けて、“competence”を“technical competence（技術的能力）”に変更することにも同意し

た。修正確定。

(4)-8 硝酸アンモニウム系肥料の分類の明確化ーモデル規則並びに試験及び判定基準マニュア

ルにおける改正案）【参考資料 No.１２参照】

① 関係書類： ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/29（スウェーデン）


硝酸アンモニウム系肥料の危険性に関する規定は複雑かつ難解な記述になっており、論理

的な矛盾を抱えている。今回スウェーデンから分類手順についてフローチャートを用いた提

案がなされたが、硫化アンモニウムに関する判定基準の妥当性については検証されなくては

ならない等の意見があった。

③ 審議結果 ― 上記意見を考慮し、スウェーデンが次回に再度提案文書を提出するこ

とになった。再提案。

(4)-9 少量クラス 1物品の輸送に適用される規定の改正

【参考資料 No.１３参照】

① 関係書類： ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/31 (SAAMI)


少量危険物の規定では、1.4S に限り特別包装規定（モデル規則 4.1.5）を適用することに

なっているが、SAAMI の長年の経験によればその必要はないとして提案された。火薬 WG

内では一定の支持が得られたが、行われた議論を考慮したうえで今後の再提案を検討するこ

とになった。

③ 審議結果 ― 再提案。

(4)- 10 試験及び判定基準マニュアルの改訂

11

【資料省略】

① 関係書類： UN/SCETDG/49/INF.4 (UN/SCEGHS/31/INF.3) （マニュアル改

訂 WG 議長）and Adds. 1 – 5

UN/SCETDG/49/INF.6 (UN/SCEGHS/31/INF.4) （カナダ, FEA）


試験及び判定基準のマニュアルを GHSからも利用することを想定した見直しが行われてき

た。今回、火薬 WGでは INF.4と INF.4/add.1の内容を審議・確認した。残りの部分につい

てはマニュアル改訂 WGが継続して確認作業を行い、今期内の正式提案文書の作成を目指す

ことになっている。

③ 審議結果 ― 継続審議。

(4)- 11 GHSにおける鈍感化火薬類の分類判定基準の明確化

【参考資料 No.１４参照】

① 関係書類： ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/30 - ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2016/6

（AEISG、SAAMI）


鈍感化爆発物をカバーする新しい 2.17 章が GHS 改訂 6 版に加えられた。ところが SAAMI

等の経験では、「(a) 実質的に爆発物又は火工品をつくる目的で製造されたものの条件が誤解

されて解釈され、爆発物として区分されることがある。以下の修正が提案された。即ち、

GHS の 2.17.2.1 を以下のように修正する：

『鈍感化されたどのような爆発物もこのクラスで検討されなければならない、ただし、

爆発物使用のため後で再鋭感化及び再分類化されるかどうかに関係なく、鈍感化された状

態の物質が次のどれかの条件にあてはまる場合はその限りではない：(a)実質的に爆発物又

は火工品をつくる目的で製造されたもの、又は・・・』『(b)(c)の“their”を“the”に変更

する以外は同文。以下省略』

③ 審議結果 ― 修正内容が火薬 WGで承認された。

(4)-12 火薬類のセキュリティー表示に関する統一国際基準

（前回からの継続）

【参考資料 No.１５，１６参照】

① 関係書類： UN/SCETDG/49/INF.35（IME）

UN/SCETDG/49/INF.67（英国及び米国）


第 43回 TDG以来、火薬類のセキュリティー表示の世界統一化が IMEを中心に議論されて

おり、EU指令フォーマットによって統一化することが検討されてきた。今回 IMEから、モ

デル規則の 1.4.3.2.1（重大影響危険物に対する特別保安規定）の下に新たなノートを追加

して、各国の主管庁に対し統一的な表示を実施するよう勧告すると共に、具体例として EU

指令フォーマットを提示する提案がなされた（INF.35）。

③ 審議結果 ― この提案は全体会議のみで議論され、修正提案（INF.67）が英国及び米国

から出された。全体会議はこの修正提案を支持し、各国からの反対が無ければ、次回の第

50回 TDGで正式提案されることになった。継続審議。

6.2 第 50回・SCE TDG における審議状況

12


一般社団法人日本海事検定協会：濵田委員

国立研究開発法人産業技術総合研究所：薄葉委員他３名(火薬関係者以外)

(2) 開催期日及び場所：2016 年（平成 28年）11月 28日～ 12 月 6 日


(3) SCETDG での審議状況及びその結果については「第 50 回 TDG 小委員会報告」【参考資料

No. １７】を参照のこと。


火薬類関係の７件が審議された。審議結果は、修正・変更の決定が 5件、継続検討が 2 件

であった。

(4)-1 第 47, 48及び 49回に採択された改定案の統合リスト

【参考資料 No.１８参照】

① 関係書類： ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/55 Appendix 7（事務局)


第 47、48及び 49回危険物輸送専門家小委員会にて合意されたに試験方法及び判定基準

マニュアル［MTC］第 6改訂版（PartⅠ）及び国連勧告モデル規則第 19改訂版［MR］

（PartⅡ）の改正案を取りまとめたものである。

火薬 WGにおいて、日本は US試験法の記述の中の”lifting charge, is”を“propellant

charge, are”に修正すべきことが指摘された。その結果下記の修正が行われ、カギ括弧を

外すことが合意された。

③ 審議結果 ― 今回の統合リストの該当テキストを確認したところ、理由は不明である

が HSL試験法の実施例の表の”Minimum”が“Mean”に変更されており、また前回修正が

決定された”propellant charge, are”の部分が、未修正の “lifting charge, is”の

ままであったため、全体会議の場、および火薬 WG議長を通じて再度修正を依頼した。

(4)-2 モデル規則第 2.1 章のクラス１の定義、及び GHS 第 2.1 章の火薬類のクラスの定義にお

けるカンマの除去

【参考資料 No.１９参照】

① 関係書類： ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/53 - ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2016/14 - (AEISG)


モデル規則 2.1.1.1 の記載されているクラス 1 の定義” Class 1 comprises:

(c)Substances and articles not mentioned under (a) and (b) which are manufactured

with a view to producing a practical, explosive or pyrotechnic effect.”『クラス

1 とは、次のものをいう。(c) (a)［爆発性物質］及び(b)［爆発性物品］以外の物質及び

物品であって、実用、爆発又は花火の効果を生じさせる目的で製造されるもの』（MR19 改

訂版化学工業日報社英文和訳）の practical の後につくカンマは不要であり、これは以

前の版から引き継いでいる間違いと思われる。同様に GHS の 2.1.1.2 にも不要なカンマが

残っている。そこでこれらのカンマを削除すべきとの提案である。

③ 審議結果 ― 削除することが合意された。

13

(4)-3 試験及び判定基準マニュアル 10.3.3節の改正提案

【参考資料 No.２０参照】

① 関係書類： ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/60 - (Sweden, AEISG)


試験及び判定基準マニュアル 10.3.3 節「試験方法の適用」の現行の記述には、試験シリ

ーズ 3 および 4 の適用方法に関し、それらにパスしなかった物質又は物品が取うるオプショ

ンについて不明確である。そこで一部修正の上パラグラフの順番を入れ替えるという提案で

ある。

③ 審議結果 ― 本提案は修正合意されたものの、スウェーデンと米国が次期 2年間

でさらに検討を継続する。

(4)-4 ケーネン試験におけるジブチルフタレート（DBP）置き換えの提案

【参考資料 No.７参照】

① 関係書類： ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/13 (フランス)


ケーネン試験の加熱速度を校正するために使用される DBPは、EU内では REACH規則で一

般使用が禁止されている。そこでフランスでは DBPの代替物質の研究を行っており、シリコ

ンオイルが暫定的に使用されている。しかしメーカーによって性質が異なる恐れがあるの

で、フランスを幹事国として有志国間でラウンドロビン試験を行い、問題点の有無を確認す

ることになってきた。使用するシリコンオイルは、BLUESIL FLD 47V100が指定された。

③ 審議結果 ― 火薬 WGはフランスが提案したシリコンオイルに合意した。試験マニュ

アルを「キャリブレーションは（1.5mmのオリフィス板付の）鋼管に 27cm3のシリコンオイ

ル、見掛け密度 0.96 ± 0.02（20℃）及び熱容量 1.46 ± 0.02 J/g.K（25℃）を詰めて加

熱を行う。」に変更することが決まった。

(4)-5 更なる試験のためのエネルギー物質の輸送

【参考資料 No.２１参照】

① 関係書類： ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/61 （CEFIC）

UN/SCETDG/50/INF.23 （CEFIC）


研究開発においては、しばしば危険性が不明なエネルギー物質の試料を輸送する必要があ

る。これらの物質はクラス 1 の爆薬として設計されていないが、クラス 1 の候補になる基を

分子に有し爆発特性や自己反応性を示す場合ある。しかし情報が足りないので適切な分類が

できない。これらの物質の輸送を円滑に行うため CEFIC は検討の第一歩として、これらのエ

ネルギー物質を区分 4.1 とし特別容器で輸送する提案を 47 回 TDG に INF.29 で行った。TDG

で前向きな反応が得られたので、ドイツ BAM で容器の試験を行い、その妥当性を示す証拠を

第 49回 TDGの INF.20 で報告した。これらを背景に今回、以下の様な正式提案を行った。

モデル規則に「2.0.4.3 Samples of energetic materials」を新設する。

危険物リストの UN3223（自己反応性液体 4.1）と UN3224（自己反応性固体 4.1）の第 9

欄に PP94及び PP95を加える。

包装要件 P520において、新特別包装規程 PP94と PP95を追加する。

③ 審議結果 ― 2.0.4.3に、対象物質を試験目的の試料のみに限ることを明記する旨を記

述する条件で提案が採択された。

14

(4)-6 硝酸アンモニウム系肥料の分類の明確化－試験及び判定基準マニュアルにおける新 39 節

の提案【参考資料 No.２２参照】

① 関係文書：ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/66（スウェーデン）

UN/SCETDG/50/INF.9（AEISG）

UN/SCETDG/50/INF.47（IME）


硝酸アンモニウム系肥料の危険性は UN2067（5.1）、UN2071（9）あるいは UN0222

（1.1D）に分類されるが、これらの分類手順は特別規定 SP186、193、306、307及び 370

と、国連試験 S.1「硝酸塩を含む肥料の持続発熱分解に関する判定のための雨どい試験」

に規定されている。しかしこれらの規定は複雑かつ難解な記述になっており、暗黙の了解

の存在のためか、論理的な矛盾を抱えている。そこでスウェーデン、オランダ、英国、フ

ランス及びドイツの非公式 WGが解決策を協議してきた。これらの議論を基に前回の TDG

でのスウェーデン提案が議論され、今回、以下のような正式提案がスウェーデンから出さ

れた。

１．分類手順をよりわかりやすくするため、フローチャートを作成して試験マニュアルⅢ

部に新設する 39 節に掲載する。

２．これに伴い危険物リスト UN2067（硝酸アンモニウム系肥料、5.1）及び UN2071（硝酸

アンモニウム系肥料、9）の第 6列の特別規定を修正する。

③ 審議結果 ― スウェーデンの提案の詳細内容について議論され、提案内容は一部修正

の上採択された。修正内容の詳細は、参考資料 No.17を参照のこと。

(4)-7 GHSの状況を考慮した試験及び判定基準マニュアルの使用

【参考資料 No.２３参照】

① 関係書類：ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/83- ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2016/16 （火薬専門部会

議長）


試験及び判定基準のマニュアルを GHSからも利用することを想定した見直しが行われて

きた。今回、火薬 WGでは INF.7と INF.7/add.1-5の内容を審議・確認した。

③ 審議結果 ― ドイツはセクション 1の修正すべき箇所を INF文書で提示した。しかし、

米国及びカナダは、GHS内の議論が固まっておらず、また GHS第 2.1章「爆発物」の大幅

な見直し作業が終了していない時点で、火薬 WGが試験マニュアルの修正提案の是非を判

断することは時期尚早であるとの意見を INF文書にて表明した。

その結果、今回はクラス 1に関連する Part I（Section 10 から 18）及び Appendicesの

みの修正を審議し、それ以外の部分は次期 2年度に検討することになった。

結局、提案文書 ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/83に記載された修正箇所の中で該当箇所のみが

採択され、その他の修正部分は削除（先送り）となった。この詳細は参考資料 No.17の付

録４にまとめ、その内容は試験マニュアル第 6版への修正（Ammendments）に含まれるこ

とになる。

15

6.3 第 31回・SCE GHS における審議状況



国立研究開発法人産業技術総合研究所：薄葉委員他

(2) 開催期日及び場所：2016 年（平成 28年）7月 5日～7 月 8日


(3) SCE GHS での審議状況及びその結果については「第 31回 GHS小委員会報告」

【参考資料 No. ２４】を参照のこと。


上記（表－１）で薄灰色に塗りつぶし欄は、TDG 及び GHS での同一文書提案を示す。

GHS の火薬類関係でまとめると、提案は 4 件あり、その内、承認 1 件、継続（再提案）3

件であった。審議結果内容については、6.1(4)に示した通りである。

6.4 第 32回・SEC GHS における審議状況



国立研究開発法人産業技術総合研究所：薄葉委員

日本大学大学院理工学研究科：城内委員他

(2) 開催期日及び場所：2016年（平成 28年）12月 7日～12月 9日


(3) SCEGHS での審議状況及びその結果については「第 32回 GHS小委員会報告」

【参考資料 No. ２５】を参照のこと。


上記（表－２）で薄灰色に塗りつぶし欄は、TDG及び GHSでの同一文書提案を示す。GHSの

火薬類関係でまとめると、提案は 2件であった。次の 4-(1)に示す提案を含め合計で、火薬類に

関係した提案は 3件、1件が合意採択され、2 件は継続審議となった。

(4)-1 GHS第 2.1章「爆発物」の見直し【参考資料 No.２６、２７参照】

① 関係書類：UN/SCETDG/50/INF.11 - UN/SCEGHS/32/INF.8 (スウェーデン)

UN/SCETDG/50/INF.18 - UN/SCEGHS/32/INF.15 (米国)


本案件はオーストラリアが 2014年の第 24回 GHSに提出した提案（UN/SCEGHS/27/INF.20）

が出発点になっており、その目的は、GHSの中の 2.1章「爆発物」が TDGの分類をそのま

ま使っており、輸送容器が無い状態の火薬類の製造、貯蔵、消費等における分類に対応で

きていないため、輸送以外にも使えるように見直してほしいというものであった。当初オ

ーストラリアのリーダーシップで非公式 WGを開催する予定であったが、現在はスウェーデ

ンが非公式 WGの議論を取りまとめている。今回スウェーデンが提出した

UN/SCETDG/50/INF.11 がその議論の今期 2年間の経過をまとめたものである。今期 2年間

の活動では正規提案の文書を作成できなかったが、スウェーデンが主導してまとめた第

2.1章と爆発物に対する GHSラベルのドラフト案が付録として記載されている。

16

③ 審議結果 ― 本議論の結論を出すことは延期し、次期 2年で継続することになった。

７．2017年度（平成 29年度）・国連会議の開催日程

SCE TDG及び SCE GHS会議は、正式に ECOSOCの定例委員会にて承認され、次の予定でスイ

ス・ジュネーブの国連ヨーロッパ本部において開催される予定である。

(1)SCE TDG 第 51回 2017年 7月 3日～ 7月 7日

第 52 回 2017年 11月 27日～ 12月 6日

(2)SCE GHS 第 33回 2017年 7月 10日～ 7月 12日

第 34 回 2017年 12月 6日～ 12月 8日

８．ISO/TC264に係る情報収集

2011年（平成 23 年 10月）に、煙火に係る ISO/TC264が中国（SAC；Standardization

Administration of China）を事務局として新たに設立された。

ISO/TC264は、煙火に係る品質管理、定義、専門用語、分類、カテゴリー化、表示、試験方

法及び基本的安全要件について国際標準化を図るための活動を行うことを目的としている。

煙火に係る標準化ということで、我が国は Pメンバーとして参加し、事務局は日本工業標準

調査会（JISC：Japanese Industrial Standards Committee）が参加している。その他の Pメ

ンバーとして、中国の他ベルギー、フランス、インド、韓国、南アフリカ、スペイン、スウェ

ーデン及びスイスとなっている。

Oメンバーとしては、アルゼンチン、オーストラリア、ボスニアヘルチェゴビナ、ブラジ

ル、チェコ、フィンランド、イラン、イタリア、ナンビア、セルビア、スロバキア、イギリス

及びアメリカが名を連ねている。

ISOは、製品の仕様・規格の国際標準化について主として活動しているものと理解してい

る。一方、国連の TDG、GHSの活動は、製品の仕様等の標準化以外の内容、例えば、製品等の

安全輸送等について主として取り組んでいるので、活動内容は多々異にしていると推察され

る。例えば、国連モデル規則には ISOを引用している規定もあるが、あくまで仕様・規格的な

ものの整合性を図るためである。

ISO/TC264における標準化が国連の TDG活動等に大きく影響を及ぼすことはないと思われる

が、火薬類に係る活動なのでその動向について注目していく必要があり、情報の収集を今後と

も続けていく。

本報告書では、スウェーデン国ストックホルムで開催（2016年 9 月 20日～22日）された３

つのワーキンググループと第５回総会の状況を報告する。

【参考資料Ｎｏ．２８参照】

（注）

・Pメンバー（Participating member）：委員会（TC/SC）において積極的に参加することを

表明した MB（Member body：会員団体）。会議、電子手段により審議に参加し、委員会等の

投票の義務を負う。

・Oメンバー（Observing member）：委員会にオブザーバーとして参加することを表明した

MB。投票権を持たない。

日本からの参加者は、以下のとおりである。

公益社団法人日本煙火協会：畑中委員

国立研究開発法人産業技術総合研究所：薄葉委員

17

WG4 及び WG5 は、2017 年 3 月 28 日～29 日（パリ）で開催されることに合意され、次回の総

会と WGは、2017年 10月 17日〜19日：中国杭州市で開催される予定。

18

【付録】IGUS 会議について

火薬類国際化対応委員会の活動として、本委託事業とは別に、毎年 IGUS 会議に委員を派

遣して火薬類等に係る情報収集を行っている。

IGUS会議の EPP会議は、参加者が SCE TDG及び SCE GHSの委員を兼ねており、SCE TDGある

いは SCE GHSの物理化学的危険性の提案内容をこの会議で事前に発表・意見交換（決議は行わ

ない）することが多いので、事前の情報収集あるいは我が国が提案する前に意見交換を行い、

その内容の方向性、結論等の是非の確認をするのに適している。

SCE TDG及び SCE GHSとも関連しており、本年度も IGUS会議に参加しているので、その状況

について、付録として報告する。

(1) 2016年（平成 28年）は、下記期日及び場所で開催された。

・EOS：2016年 4 月 11日～ 12日スイス国バーゼル

日本より参加：東京大学：新井委員

・EPP：2016年 4月 14日～ 15日スイス国ベルン

日本より参加：国立研究開発法人産業技術総合研究所薄葉委員

(2) 2017年（平成 29年）は、下記期日及び場所で開催が決定された。

・EPP：2017年 4月 17日～ 21日中国西安

日本より薄葉委員参加予定

・EOS：2017年 4 月 24日～ 26日オランダ国 TNO

日本より新井委員の推薦者が参加予定

19

参考資料 No.1 委員構成

火薬類国際化対応委員会（敬称略、順不同）

委員長小川輝繁公益財団法人総合安全工学研究所

委員飯田光明国立研究開発法人産業技術総合研究所

新井充東京大学大学院環境安全研究センター

濵田高志一般社団法人日本海事検定協会

城内博日本大学大学院理工学研究科

薄葉州国立研究開発法人産業技術総合研究所

川﨑勝樹日本火薬工業会

山口潤仁日本火薬工業会

河野晴行公益社団法人日本煙火協会

金澤修治日本火薬卸売業会

金子孝文一般社団法人日本火薬銃砲商組合連合会

御手洗伸太郎一般社団法人日本建設業連合会

高木裕治石灰石鉱業協会

佐久間信彰公益社団法人全国火薬類保安協会

オブザーバー

毛利智徳経済産業省商務流通保安グループ

高橋朝子経済産業省商務流通保安グループ

火薬類国際化対応委員会作業部会（敬称略、順不同）

主査山口潤仁日本火薬工業会

委員飯田光明国立研究開発法人産業技術総合研究所

薄葉州国立研究開発法人産業技術総合研究所後藤浩司カヤク・ジャパン株式会社

小高正晴日油株式会社

尾田博幸中国化薬株式会社

鈴木慶正日本工機株式会社

鈴木康弘日本カーリット株式会社

畑中修二公益社団法人日本煙火協会

高野剛弘細谷火工株式会社

能勢健作全日本中国花火輸入共同組合

20

参考資料 No.2 委員構成

危険物等海上運送国際基準検討委員会等（敬称略、順不同）

委員長浦環九州工業大学

委員新井充東京大学環境安全研究センター

今村剛一般財団法人日本海事協会

太田進国立研究開発法人海上技術安全研究所

大森彰一般社団法人日本船主協会

岡泰資横浜国立大学大学院

関口秀俊東京工業大学大学院

田中護史一般財団法人日本船舶技術研究協会

田村昌三東京大学名誉教授

西口政文公益社団法人日本海難防止協会

春山豊一般社団法人日本化学工業協会

丸山研一一般財団法人日本舶用品検定協会

伊藤真澄国土交通省海事局

坂中裕司海上保安庁交通部安全課

本委員会の作業部会として

１．危険物輸送要件部会

２．特殊貨物輸送部会

３．危険性評価試験部会

４．ばら積み液体危険物部会

５．危険物輸送ＵＮ対応部会

が設置され、我が国の対応等が検討されている。

危険物輸送ＵＮ対応部会の委員構成は、次頁のとおりである。

なお、他の部会の委員構成は省略する。

21

危険物輸送ＵＮ対応部会（敬称略、五十音順）

部会長田村昌三東京大学名誉教授

委員青戸久明日本危険物倉庫協会

新井充東京大学大学院環境安全研究センター

内沢昭子一般社団法人全日本航空事業連合会

遠藤新治郎環境技術・健康安全研究所

岡泰資横浜国立大学大学院

小川輝繁公益財団法人総合安全工学研究所

小幡昌弘日本ドラム缶更正工業会

城戸恒介一般社団法人日本船主協会

近内亜紀子国立研究開発法人海上技術安全研究所

城内博日本大学大学院理工学研究科

杉山章危険物保安技術協会

関口秀俊東京工業大学大学院

田口昭門一般財団法人日本舶用品検定協会

田中一成日本危険物コンテナ協会

徳富栄一郎一般社団法人日本産業・医療ガス協会

鳥越利之高圧ガス保安協会

本田信裕ドラム缶工業会

松尾初夫日本ポリエチレン製品工業連合会

枩沢俊雄公益社団法人全国火薬類保安協会

松末隆志日本有機過酸化物工業会

森田健国立医薬品食品衛生研究所

八木伊知郎一般社団法人日本化学工業協会

谷部伸一郎一般社団法人電池工業会

山岸史典一般社団法人日本船舶品質管理協会

山口潤仁日本火薬工業会

山中すみへ東京歯科大学

［官庁関係委員］

阿久津正浩環境省大臣官房廃棄物・リサイクル対策部

杉本浩光国土交通省航空局安全部運航安全課

十川明弘国土交通省海事局検査測度課

中西拓也経済産業省商務流通保安グループ

平地康一厚生労働省医薬食品局審査管理課

毛利智徳経済産業省商務流通保安グループ

山口房光国土交通省総合政策局総務課

山本真靖総務省消防庁危険物保安室

22

参考資料 No.3

第 49 回 TDG 小委員会報告平成 28 年 7 月 27 日

（独）産業技術総合研究所

安全科学研究部門

薄葉州

1. 開催期日： 2016 年 6 月 27 日～7 月 6 日

2. 開催場所：スイスジュネーブ国連ヨーロッパ本部

3. 議長： Mr. D. Pfund（米国）、

副議長： Mr. C. Phauvadel（仏国）

4. 参加国：アルゼンチン、オーストラリア、オーストリア、ベルギー、ブラジ

ル、カナダ、中国、フィンランド、仏国、ドイツ、イタリア、日本、

オランダ、ノルウェー、ポーランド、ポルトガル、韓国、ロシア、南

アフリカ、スペイン、スェーデン、スイス、英国、米国

オブザーバー国：ルクセンブルグ、ニュージーランド、ルーマニ

ア、スロバキア

日本からの出席者：濱田 (NKKK)、薄葉 (AIST)、他

5. 多国間機関： European Union (EU)、 Intergovernmental Organization for International

Carriage by Rail (OTIF)

6. 国際機構： Food and Agriculture Organization（FAO）、International Civil Aviation

Organization (ICAO)、International Maritime Organization (IMO)、World

Health Organization (WHO)

7. NGO 機関（全 30 機関）：

Australian Explosives Industry Safety Group (AEISG); Compressed Gas Association (CGA); Cosmetics

Europe; Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles (COSTHA); Dangerous Goods Advisory

Council (DGAC); Dangerous Goods Trainers Association (DGTA); European Aerosol Federation (FEA);

European Association for Advanced Rechargeable Batteries European Batteries (RECHARGE); European

Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA); Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC); European Industrial

Gases Association (EIGA); Fertilizer Europe (FE); Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME); International

Air Transport Association (IATA); International Association of Fire and Rescue Service (CTIF);

International Association for Soaps, Detergents and Maintenance Products (AISE); International

Confederation of Container Reconditioners (ICCR); International Confederation of Plastics Packaging

Manufacturers (ICPP); International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA); International

Confederation of Intermediate Bulk Container Associations (ICIBCA); International Dangerous Goods

and Containers Association (IDGCA); International Federation of Inspection Agencies (IFIA);

International Fishmeal and Fish Oil Association(IFFO); International Fibre Drum Institute (IFDI);

International Organization for Standardization (ISO); International Organization of Motor Vehicle

Manufactures (OICA); International Paint and Printing Ink Council (IPPIC); KiloFarad International

(KFI); Portable Rechargeable Battery Association (PRBA); Responsible Packaging Management

Association of Southern Africa (RPMASA); Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute

(SAAMI)..

うち火薬関係：

Australian Explosives Industry Safety Group (AEISG),

Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME),

Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI)

23

火薬類専門部会（火薬 WG）参加者 2016 年 6 月 27 日～7 月 1 日

Name Representing Email address

Arnaud Vandenbroucke Belgium

Jean-Luc Arpin Canada

Mikko Ojala Finland

Lionel Aufauvre France

Christian Michot France

Heike Michael-Schulz Germany

Alexander von Oertzen Germany

Shu Usuba Japan

Ed de Jong Netherlands

Soedesh Mahesh Netherlands

Peter Dawson New Zealand

Guro Blakstad Norway

Bjorn Arnfinn Gregertsen Norway

Joanna Szczygielska Poland

Nicolae Mihai Cuciureanu Romania

Ramon Gonzalez Spain

Jose R. Quintana Spain

Shulin Nie Sweden

Lorens Van Dam Sweden

Robert Hodgson UK

Brian Vos USA

Ken Price AEISG

Bob Sheridan AEISG

Dieter Heitkamp CEFIC

Peter Schuurman CEFIC

Klaus Pilatus CLEPA

Nicholas Cook

Fertilizers

Europe

Kishore Shah

Fertilizers

Europe

David Boston IME

Timothy Golian IME

Noel Hsu IME

Brad Preston IME

Kaylee Baker RPMASA

Cheryl Kelly RPMASA

Ben Barrett SAAMI

Robert Ford SAAMI

Brian Osowiecki SAAMI

Richard Patterson SAAMI

Rosa Garcia Couto UN/ECE/GHS

24

8. 会議議事録

8-1 議案の承認

省略

8-2 火薬関係

8-2-1 US 式及び HSL 式閃光組成物試験の装置、材料および判定基準に関する提案の採択内容の

確認

関係書類： ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/96/Add.1 (事務局)

議題概要

昨年の第 48 回 TDG 小委員会において日本の提案文書が審議され、幾つかの修正を経て採択さ

れた。採択された提案内容は一旦保留の状態で（カギ括弧内に入れられ）、レポート文書

（ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/96/Add.1、Annex 1）に収録された。今回の第 49 回 TDG 小委員会では、その

収録内容を再確認しカギ括弧を外すための審議がなされた

議論及び結果

火薬 WG において、日本は US 試験法の記述の中の”lifting”を“propellant”に修正すべきこ

と、また米国からは文法上の修正点が指摘された。その結果下記の修正が行われ、カギ括弧を外

すことが合意された。

“2.4 Test criteria and method of assessing results

The result is considered positive “+” and the pyrotechnic substances in powder form or as

pyrotechnic units as presented in the fireworks, that are used in waterfalls, or to produce an aural effect, or

used as a bursting charge or propellant lifting charge, is are to be considered as flash compositions if …”

8-2-2 ケーネン試験に関連する試験結果

関係書類： ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/6（ドイツ）

UN/SCETDG/49/INF.27（ドイツ）

議題概要

第 47 回 TDG において、ドイツからケーネン試験の鋼管の品質要求を修正する提案が出され

た。これに対して英国、CEFIC 及び IME から医薬品や ANE の比較試験をするようコメントが出

された。これを受け、今回、再提案文書（2016/6）及び ANE の試験結果（INF.27）が提出され

た。これによれば、鋼管破壊圧力の基準を 28 MPa ± 4 MPa としている。

議論及び結果

本提案の鋼管破壊圧力の基準範囲 28 MPa ± 4 MPa は、従来の 30 MPa ± 3 MPa を包含してい

ないため、過去に判定された結果に不測の影響があることが懸念された。そのため、圧力範囲を

29 MPa ± 4 MPa にシフトする修正を加えて、本提案が了承された。結局、下記に示す修正が確

定された。

第 6 版試験及び判定基準マニュアル

Section 11.5.1.2.1 – amend sub-para (d) as shown below:

(d) The bursting pressure as determined by quasi-static load through an incompressible fluid

shall be 30 ± 3 MPa29 MPa ± 4 MPa.

25










8-2-3 試験及び判定基準マニュアルにおける標準雷管の新規構造提案の支援資料

関係書類： ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/10 （ドイツ）

UN/SCETDG/49/INF.36 (IME)

議題概要

第 47 回 TDG において標準雷管（欧州型）の設計の修正をドイツが提案し、多大な支持を得た

ものの、新旧のデザインが同等の性能をもつことを示す実験的証拠が求められた。比較データと

しては既にトラウズル試験の結果が示されていたが、今回水中爆発による比較データが示され

た。この試験は欧州規格 EN13763 に従って行われ、新旧デザインがほぼ等しい爆発エネルギー

を持つことが示された。これらに基づいて、ドイツは標準雷管の改正デザイン、即ち、第 47 回

の提案にある銅管体に 0.6 g PETN 添装薬を用いた構造の正当性をアピールした。

一方 IME は、米国型と欧州型の 2 種類の標準雷管を統一して、より単純化された標準雷管の

検討を行ってきており、今回、そのたたき台が INF.36 文書によって示された。これによれば、

管体は銅またはアルミニウム、添装薬は最小圧搾圧 26 MPa で 0.450 - 0.475 g の PETN などが主要

パラメータである。

議論及び結果

火薬 WG としては統一型標準雷管の開発の方向性を支持しつつ、以下の議論があった。

現在の欧州型と米国型の標準雷管は、薬量、圧搾圧、管体材料及び管体底面の形状が異なる

ため、これらが果たして同等の威力かどうかを示す十分なデータがない。

必ずしも標準雷管を用いる必要がない場合がある（ブースターを用いる試験など）。

火薬 WG は、ドイツと IME が協力し、次期 2 年期で統一型標準雷管を完成させるよう要請し

た。

8-2-4 ケーネン試験におけるジブチルフタレート（DBP）置き換えの提案

関係書類： ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/13 (フランス)

議題概要

ケーネン試験の加熱速度を校正するために使用される DBP は、EU 内では REACH 規則で一般

26

使用が禁止されている。そこでフランスでは DBP の代替物質の研究を行っており、シリコンオ

イルが暫定的に使用されている。このような背景から、試験マニュアルの 11.5.1.2.2、

12.5.1.2.2、 18.6.1.2.2 及び 24.4.1.2.2 節の試験記述「キャリブレーションは（1.5mmのオリフィス

板付の）鋼管に 27cm3 のフタル酸ジブチルを詰めて加熱を行う。」のところを「キャリブレーシ

ョンは（1.5mm のオリフィス板付の）鋼管に 27cm3 のシリコンオイル、見掛け密度 0.96 ± 0.02

（20℃）及び熱容量 1.46 ± 0.02 J/g.K（25℃）を詰めて加熱を行う。」に変更するよう提案され

た。

議論及び結果

火薬 WG はフランスが提案したシリコンオイルに合意したが、メーカーによって性質が異なる

恐れがあるので、次期 TDG までに有志国間でラウンドロビン試験を行い、問題点の有無を確認

することになった。幹事国はフランスで、使用するシリコンオイルは、BLUESIL FLD 47V100 が

指定された。当該製品の詳細は下記 URL参照。•http://www.silitech.ch/upload/complement_info_fournisseur_d/32.pdf

8-2-5 GHS 2.1 章の見直し → GHS 報告書参照

8-2-6 特別規定 347 の追加登録

関係書類： ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/18 （カナダ）

議題概要

第 45 回小委員会で、IME と SAAMIは、試験及び判定基準マニュアルの図 10.3 と図 10.8 にボ

ックス 33「包装品の外部に危険な影響が表れるか」の前にボックス 32a「特別規定 347 を適用す

るか」を追加し、特別規定 347 が割り当てられた 8 品目のみが 6(d)試験の対象であることが明示

された。第 48 回小委員会で、カナダから更に 10 品目追加の提案があったが、提案品目の内、

N.O.S.と UN0367－FUZES, DETONATING が支持された。今回はその内容で再提案が行われた。

すなわち、特別規定 347 が適用される品目に次の 4 品目を追加する；

UN 0349 (ARTICLES, EXPLOSIVE, N.O.S.)

UN 0367 (FUZES, DETONATING)

UN 0384 (COMPONENTS, EXPLOSIVE TRAIN, N.O.S.)

UN 0481 (SUBSTANCES, EXPLOSIVE, N.O.S.)。

議論及び結果

火薬 WG は全員一致で本提案を採択した。その結果、UN 0349、0367、0384 及び 0481 に特別

規定 347 が割り当てられ、6(d)試験の対象になることが確定した。

8-2-7 試験及び判定基準マニュアルにおける 1.1.2 節の改正

関係書類： ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/19 (IME)

議題概要

危険物の種類によっては、それらの分類の責任が申請者（製造業者、配送業者、輸入業者、使

用者など）にある場合と、クラス１のように、分類の責任が主管庁にある場合がある。従ってク

ラス１の場合、試験を実施する機関と、それらの結果に基づいて分類を行う主管庁は区別されな

くてはならない。この観点からすると、現在、試験及び判定基準マニュアル（試験マニュアル）

の 1.1.2 節にある“testing authority”という表現は、試験実施機関が危険物の分類について責任を

持つと誤解される恐れがある。これと同様の記述は試験マニュアル付録 6 の 2.3 節にも現れる。

27

そこで、この誤解を防ぐため、試験マニュアル 1.1.2 節の 2 番目の文章と、付録 6 の 2.3 節の 2 番

目の文章の“testing authority”を“testing body”に置き換え、分類についての責任の記述を削除

するという提案である。

議論及び結果

火薬 WG は“testing body”が適切な表現であることに合意した。またこれだけでなく、現行の

“It therefore assumes competence on the part of the testing authority and…”にある、”competence”

の意味が、主管庁：”competence authority”と混同される可能性があるというフランスの指摘を

受けて、“competence”を“technical competence（技術的能力）”に変更することにも同意した。

なお米国から、試験実施機関に分類責任も課される場合であっても、本修正が不具合を起こすこ

とはないであろうとのコメントがあった。

この結果、以下の修正が確定した。

Section 1.1.2 – amend as shown below:

It therefore assumes technical competence on the part of the testing uthority

bodyand leaves responsibility for classification with them.

Appendix 6, Section 2.3 – amend as shown below:

The remarks 1.1.2 from section 1 "General introduction" are emphasized that

technical competence on the part of the testing authority body is assumed and

responsibility for classification is left with them.

8-2-8 硝酸アンモニウム系肥料の分類の明確化－モデル規則並びに試験及び判定基準マニュア

ルにおける改正案

関係書類： ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/29（スウェーデン）

UN/SCETDG/49/INF.5（スウェーデン）

UN/SCETDG/49/INF.23（スウェーデン）

議題概要

硝酸アンモニウム系肥料の危険性は UN2067（5.1）、UN2071（9）あるいは UN0222（1.1D）に

分類されるが、これらの分類手順は特別規定 SP186、193、306、307 及び 370 と、国連試験 S.1

「硝酸塩を含む肥料の持続発熱分解に関する判定のための雨どい試験」に規定されている。しか

しこれらの規定は複雑かつ難解な記述になっており、暗黙の了解の存在のためか、論理的な矛盾

を抱えている。そこでスウェーデン、オランダ、英国、フランス及びドイツの非公式 WG が解決

策を協議してきた。これらの議論を基に今回スウェーデンから以下の提案がなされた。

１．分類手順をよりわかりやすくするため、フローチャートを作成して試験マニュアルⅢ部に新

設する 39 節に掲載する。

２．SP306 を次のように変える。「この登録は、試験シリーズ 2 の試験でクラス 1 に受け入れる

には鈍感すぎる工業用、非肥料用硝酸アンモニウムに使用されることが出来る（MTC 第Ⅰ

部参照）。また、UN No.0222 参照。」

３．SP307 を次のように変える。「この登録は、均質な硝酸アンモニウム系肥料に用いられるこ

とが出来る。MTC、Ⅲ部 39 節で提示された手順に従って分類されるべきである。」

４．SP370 の「硝酸アンモニウム」の前に、「工業用、非肥料用（2 か所）」を追加する。

議論と結果

火薬 WG で以下の議論があった。

１．試験マニュアル第Ⅲ部の 39 節にフローチャートを新設することに関しては一般的に支持で

きる。

２．しかし今回提案されたフローチャートには硫化アンモニウムに関する判定基準が含まれてお

28

り、これは現行の判定基準にはないものであるから、この妥当性については検証されなくて

はならない。

３．現行の試験マニュアル第Ⅲ部 38 節に下記の記述があるが、これは古いバージョンの SP193

を反映したもので、本来アップデート時に削除されるべきものが、誤って残存していたと考

えられる。

38.2.3.3 Ammonium nitrate fertilizers with the composition given for UN 2071 may

be regarded as not subject to the Model Regulations if shown not to be liable to self-

sustaining decomposition and provided that they do not contain an excess of nitrate

greater than 10% by mass (calculated as potassium nitrate).

結局、上記の意見を考慮し、スウェーデンが次回に再度提案文書を提出することになった。

8-2-9 少量クラス 1 物品の輸送に適用される規定の改正

関係書類： ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/31 (SAAMI)

議題概要

少量危険物の規定では、1.4S に限り特別包装規定（モデル規則 4.1.5）を適用することになっ

ているが、SAAMIの経験によればその必要はない。また SAAMIの長年の経験によれば、装弾に

対しては試験シリーズ 6(d)を実施する必要がなく、代替要件を確立できると考える。

以上のことから SAAMI から下記の提案がなされた。

1. モデル規則の少量危険物規定の 3.4.2 節を下記のように修正する（取り消し線）。

3.4.2 危険物は、適切な外装容器に収納された内装容器にのみ収納しなければならない。中

間容器を用いても良い。更に、危険区分 1.4、隔離区分 S の物品は、4.1.5 節の規定を満たさ

なければならない。エアゾールや「小型ガス容器」等の物品の輸送には内装容器の使用は不

要である。輸送物の総重量は 30kg を超えてはならない。

2. 下記のような新規 SP ***を追加し、UN 0012「無火薬弾丸付き砲用完成弾、小火器弾薬を含

む†」、UN0014「砲用空包又は小火器用空包又は工具用空砲†」及び UN0055「プライマー付き

薬きょう†」に適用する。

SP***

「次の規定を満たす形状の物品は、試験シリーズ 6(d)の対象の必要は無く、3.4 章に従って輸送

しても良い。

(a) 大きさは、8 ゲージ薬莢又はそのほか全ての装弾で 12.7 mm 弾丸／ネック径に限定され

る。

(b) 無火薬弾丸のセンターファイヤーライフル及びピストルは、弾丸が外装に隣にならず又

は直接他の装弾の起爆薬に接触しないように方向づけられなければならない。

(c) 工具用空砲；プライマー付き薬莢；そして 6 mm径を超えない、弾丸のあるリムファイ

ヤー装弾は、内装なしで方向性なくパックされても良い。

議論と結果

火薬 WG 内では上記提案 1 について一定の支持が得られたが、提案 2 については支持が得られ

なかった。ただし装弾に関してデフォルト表を作成し、包装要件や 6(d)試験を省略する可能性に

ついては支持が得られた。

SAAMIは、これらの議論を考慮したうえで今後の再提案を検討することになった。

8-2-10 試験及び判定基準マニュアルの改訂 → GHS 報告書参照

8-2-11 GHS における鈍感化火薬類の分類判定基準の明確化 → GHS 報告書参照

29

8-2-12 火薬類のセキュリティー表示に関する統一国際基準（前回からの継続）

関係書類： UN/SCETDG/49/INF.35（IME）

UN/SCETDG/49/INF.67（英国及び米国）

議題概要

第 43 回 TDG 以来、火薬類のセキュリティ表示の世界統一化が IME を中心に議論されてお

り、EU 指令フォーマットによって統一化することが検討されてきた。しかし、各国独自のセキ

ュリティー表示が既に実施されている現状を考えると、統一表示に関して TDG はあくまでも勧

告にとどめるべきであり、表示方法に関しては各国の主管庁の責任にゆだねるべきと考えられ

る。そこで今回 IME から、モデル規則の 1.4.3.2.1（重大影響危険物に対する特別保安規定）の下

に新たなノートを追加して、各国の主管庁に対し統一的な表示を実施するよう勧告すると共に、

具体例として EU 指令フォーマットを提示する提案がなされた（INF.35）。

議論と結果

この提案は全体会議のみで議論された。その結果、下記のような修正提案（INF.67）が英国及

び米国から出された。全体会議はこの修正提案を支持し、各国からの反対が無ければ、次回の第

50 回 TDG で正式提案されることになった。

1.4.3.2 Specific security provisions for high consequence dangerous goods

1.4.3.2.1 In implementing national security provisions competent authorities shall consider

establishing a programme for identifying consignors or carriers engaged in the transport of high

consequence dangerous goods for the purpose of communicating security related information.

Note: In addition to the security provisions of these Regulations, competent authorities

may implement further security provisions for reasons other than safety of dangerous goods during transport. In order to not impede international and multimodal transport

by different explosives security markings, it is recommended that such markings be

formatted consistent with an internationally harmonized standard (e.g. European Union Commission Directive 2008/43/EC).

和訳

1.4.3.2 重大影響危険物に対する特別保安規定

1.4.3.2.1 国の保安規定の履行において、所管官庁は保安関連情報を連絡するために、重

大影響危険物の輸送に従事する荷送人又は運送者の確認のための方策を考慮しなければなら

ない。

注：これらの規則の保安規定に加え、主管庁は、輸送安全以外の理由のための更なる保安規定を実施してよい。異なる形式のセキュリティ表示が火薬になされることで国際間又は多国間輸送が妨げられることが無いように、そのような表示は国際的に調和された基準に沿う形式（例えば欧州連合委員会指令2008/43/EC）であることが勧告される。

以下省略

以上

30

参考資料 No.4

Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods

and on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification

and Labelling of Chemicals

Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods

Report of the Sub-Committee of Experts on the

Transport of Dangerous Goods on its forty-eighth

session

held in Geneva from 30 November to 9 December 2015

Addendum

Table of contents

Annexes

Page

I. Draft amendments to the 6th revised edition of the United

Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Manual of

Tests and Criteria .................................................................................. 2

II. Draft amendments to the 19th revised edition of the United

Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Model

Regulations ............................................................................................ 7

III. Corrections to the 19th revised edition of the United Nations Recommendations

on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Model Regulation .................................... 19

United Nations ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/96/Add.1

Secretariat Distr.: General 8 January 2016 English Original: English and French

31

Annex I

Draft amendments to the 6th revised edition of the

United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of

Dangerous Goods, Manual of Tests and Criteria

Appendix 6

Insert a section 5.2 to read as follows:

“5.2 Substances which may be polymerizing substances (Division 4.1)

Provided that the substance is not intended for polymerization, the classification

procedure for polymerizing substances need not be applied if:

(a) The chemical structure of the substance contains no double or

triple bonds or strained rings; or

(b) The compound contains double or triple bonds or strained rings,

and the molecular mass M(CHON) counting only the elements C, H, O and N

is more than 150; or

(c) The compound is solid with a melting point above 50 °C.”.

Renumber the existing sections 5.2 and 5.3 as 5.3 and 5.4.

(Reference document: ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2015/36 as amended by informal document

INF.55)

[Appendix 7

Amend the title of the appendix to read as follows: “FLASH COMPOSITION

TESTS”. Insert a new subtitle to read: “1. HSL Flash Composition Test”.

Renumber existing paragraphs accordingly.

In 1.1 (former 1), after “fireworks, that are used” insert “in waterfalls, or”. In the

second sentence, replace “lifting” by “propellant”.

In 1.2.2 (former 2.2), replace “vessel is closed by an aluminium bursting” by “vessel

is closed by a brass or aluminium bursting”. In the last sentence, after “lead washer”

insert “or a washer of a suitable deformable material (for example,

polyoxymethylene)”.

In 1.4 (former 4), after “used in waterfalls,” insert “or to produce an aural effect,”.

Replace “lifting” by “propellant”. Amend the table to read as follows:

“

32

Composition (mass %)

Use or

effect

Minimum time for a

pressure rise from 690 to 2 070 kPa

(ms) Result

Potassium

perchlorate/Aluminium (77/23) Aural

(report) 0.48

Flash

composition

Potassium perchlorate/ Barium

nitrate/ Aluminium /Magnalium

(20/20/45/15)

Aural

(report) 2.15

Flash

composition

Potassium perchlorate

/Potassium benzoate (71/29)

Aural

(whistle) 0.89

Flash

composition


/Potassium hydrogen

terephthalate /Titanium

(62/25/13)

Aural

(whistle) 1.67

Flash

composition


/Aluminium (P2000)/Aluminium

(P50) (53/16/31) Waterfall 2.73

Flash

composition


/Aluminium (P2000)/Aluminium

(P50)/ Antimony sulphide

(50/15/30/5) Waterfall 1.19

Flash

composition

Potassium perchlorate/Charcoal

(80/20) Bursting 0.85

Flash

composition


(60/40) Bursting 2.80

Flash

composition


(50/50) Bursting 9.26

Not flash

composition

Potassium perchlorate/

Potassium nitrate /Charcoal

(53/26/21) Bursting 1.09

Flash

composition

Potassium perchlorate/

Potassium nitrate /Charcoal

(53/26/21) (Cottonseed core) Bursting 7.39

Not flash

composition


/Aluminium (59/23/18) Bursting 1.14

Flash

composition

”.

Insert a new section 2 to read as follows:

“2. US Flash Composition Test

2.1 Introduction

This test may be used to determine if pyrotechnic substances in powder form

or as pyrotechnic units as presented in fireworks that are used in waterfalls, or to

33

produce an aural effect or used as a bursting charge or propellant charge, may be

considered a “flash composition” for the purposes of the default fireworks

classification table in 2.1.3.5.5 of the Model Regulations.

2.2 Apparatus and materials

The experimental set up consists of:

A cardboard or fibreboard sample tube with a minimum inside diameter of

25 mm and a maximum height of 154 mm with a maximum wall thickness of

3.8 mm, closed at the base with a thin cardboard or paperboard disk, plug or cap just

sufficient to retain the sample;

A 1.0 mm thick 160 × 160 mm witness plate consisting of steel conforming

to specification S235JR (EN10025) or ST37-2 (DIN17100) or SPCC (JIS G 3141)

or equivalent having a stretch limit (or rupture strength) of 185-355 N/mm2, an

ultimate tensile strength of 336 - 379 N/mm2 and a percentage elongation after

fracture of 26-46% ;

An electric igniter, e.g. a fuse head, with lead wires of at least 30 cm in

length;

A mild steel confinement sleeve (weighing approximately 3 kg) having an

outside diameter of 63 mm and a minimum length of 165 mm with a flat-bottomed

round bore whose interior dimensions for diameter and depth are 38 mm and

155 mm, respectively, and a notch or groove cut into one radius of the open end

sufficient to allow the igniter lead wires to pass through (the steel sleeve might be

provided with a rugged steel handle for easier handling);

A steel ring of approximately 50 mm height with an inner diameter of

95 mm; and

A solid metal base, e.g. a plate of approximately 25 mm in thickness and

150 mm square.

2.3 Procedure

2.3.1 Prior to testing, the pyrotechnic substance is stored for at least 24 hours in a

desiccator at a temperature of 20-30 °C. Twenty-five (25) g net mass of the

pyrotechnic substance to be tested as a loose powder or granulated or coated onto

any substrate, is pre-weighed and then poured carefully into a fibreboard sample

tube with the bottom end closed with a cardboard or paperboard disk, cap or plug.

After filling, the top cardboard or paperboard disk, cap or plug might be inserted

lightly to protect the sample from spillage during transport to the test stand. The

height of the sample substance in the tube will vary depending on its density. The

sample should be first consolidated by lightly tapping the tube on a non-sparking

surface. The final density of the pyrotechnic substance in the tube should be as close

as possible to the density achieved when contained in a fireworks device.

2.3.2 The witness plate is placed on the supporting ring. If present, the paperboard

or cardboard top disk, cap or plug of the fibreboard sample tube is removed and the

electric igniter is inserted into the top of the pyrotechnic substance to be tested and

visually positioned to an approximate depth of 10 mm. The paperboard or cardboard

34

top disk, cap or plug is then inserted or re-inserted, fixing the igniter's position in the

fibreboard sample tube and the depth of its match head. The lead wires are bent over

and down along the sidewall and bent away at the bottom. The sample tube is placed

vertically and centred on the witness plate. The steel sleeve is placed over the

fibreboard sample tube. The igniter lead wires are positioned to pass through the

slotted groove in the bottom edge of the steel confining sleeve and will be ready to

attach to the firing circuit apparatus. Finally, the alignment of the steel sleeve and

the witness plate is corrected so that their centres are aligned with the centre of the

steel ring. See Figure A7.10 as an example of the test set-up. The cardboard or

paperboard disk, cap or plug at the bottom end of the sample tube should be placed

properly to avoid air gap between the witness plate and the bottom end of the

substance to be tested.

2.3.3 The electric igniter is then initiated from a safe position. After initiation and a

suitable interval the witness plate is recovered and examined. The test should be

performed 3 times unless a positive result is obtained earlier.

2.4 Test criteria and method of assessing results

The result is considered positive “+” and the pyrotechnic substances in

powder form or as pyrotechnic units as presented in the fireworks, that are used in

waterfalls, or to produce an aural effect, or used as a bursting charge or lifting

charge, is to be considered as flash composition if:

(a) In any trial the witness plate is torn, perforated,

pierced or penetrated; or;

(b) The average of the maximum depths of indented witness plates

from all three trials exceeds 15 mm.

Examples of results


Use or

effect

Observation of witness plate or

averaged depth of indentation (mm) Result

Potassium perchlorate/Aluminium

(77/23) Aural

(report) Pierced

Flash

composition

Potassium perchlorate/Barium

nitrate/Aluminium/Magnalium

(20/20/45/15)

Aural

(report) 11.3

Not flash

composition

Potassium perchlorate/Potassium

benzoate

(71/29)

Aural

(whistle) Pierced

Flash

composition


hydrogen terephthalate /Titanium

(62/25/13)

Aural

(whistle) Pierced

Flash

composition


(P2000)/Aluminium (P50) (53/16/31) Waterfall Pierced

Flash

composition


(P2000)/Aluminium (P50)/Antimony

sulphide

(50/15/30/5) Waterfall Pierced

Flash

composition

Potassium perchlorate/Charcoal (80/20)

Bursting Pierced

Flash

composition


Bursting 17.7

Flash

composition

35


Use or

effect

Observation of witness plate or

averaged depth of indentation (mm) Result


Bursting 6.7

Not flash

composition


nitrate /Charcoal (53/26/21) Bursting Torn

Flash

composition


nitrate /Charcoal (53/26/21) (Cottonseed

core) Bursting 12.7

Not flash

composition

Potassium

perchlorate/Charcoal/Aluminium

(59/23/18) Bursting Pierced

Flash

composition

36

(A) Cardboard or fibreboard sample tube (B) Steel witness plate

(C) Electric igniter (D) Mild steel confinement sleeve

(E) Steel ring (F) Solid metal base

(G) Substance to be tested (H) Cardboard or paperboard disk, cap or plug

(I) Groove in sleeve for igniter wires (J) Handle welded on (optional)

Figure A7.10”]

(Reference documents: ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2015/34 and informal document INF.53)

37

参考資料 No.5





Forty-ninth session Geneva, 27 June – 6 July 2016

Item 2 (c) of the provisional agenda

Explosives and related matters:

Review of tests in parts I and II of the Manual of Tests and Criteria

Test results relating to the Koenen test

Transmitted by the expert from Germany1

1. The expert from Germany proposed during the forty-seventh session of the

TDG Sub-Committee to amend the quality requirement of the steel tube in the

Koenen Test (ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2015/4).

2. During the forty-seventh session the TDG Sub-Committee agreed that the

expert from Germany continue research into replacement materials for the

unavailable tube steel and prepare a revised proposal which consider the comments

of the working group on explosives.

3. The United Kingdom, CEFIC and IME suggested running comparison tests

on pharmaceutical and ANE samples.

4. Because the expert of Germany did not get any further test results, Germany

will execute comparison test with ANE samples until the forty-ninth session of the

TDG Sub-Committee. The test results will be presented in an informal paper.

5. The IGUS EOS Working Group has asked in the past companies and

competent authorities to carry out tests on selected substances using former steel

tubes (bursting pressure 30 MPa ± 3 MPa) on the one hand and using the new steel

1 In accordance with the programme of work of the Sub-Committee for 2015–2016 approved

by the Committee at its seventh session (see ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/92, paragraph 95 and

ST/SG/AC.10/42, para. 15).

United Nations ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/6

Secretariat Distr.: General 21 March 2016 Original: English

38

tubes (bursting pressure between 25.2 MPa and 25.9 MPa) on the other hand. The

test results were presented in the annex of working paper

(ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2015/4). The observed effects on the steel tubes with a bursting

pressure between 25.2 MPa and 25.9 MPa are comparable to the effects as observed

before using the former steel tube quality.

Proposal

6. Based on these test results and subject to the test results on ANE samples the

IGUS EOS Working Group proposes, through the expert from Germany, the

following amendments:

(a) To change the steel tube bursting pressure criteria in terms of

quality control to 28 MPa ± 4 MPa;

(b) Consequently, to amend the text in letter (d) in section 11

(11.5.1.2.1), section 12 (12.5.1.2.1), section 18 (18.6.1.2.1) and section 25

(25.4.1.2.1) to read as follows:

“(d) The bursting pressure as determined by quasi-static load

through an

incompressible fluid shall be 28 MPa ± 4 MPa”.

39

参考資料 No.6








review of tests in parts I and II of the Manual of Tests and Criteria

Supporting material for the new design proposal for the standard detonator in the Manual of Tests and Criteria

Transmitted by the expert from Germany2

Introduction

1. During the forty-seventh session of the Sub-Committee an amendment to the

design for the standard detonator (European type) has been proposed in document

ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2015/26. While there was much general support for an update of

the standard detonator specification, discussions in the explosives working group

(EWG) led to the result, that further experimental evidence would be desirable to

demonstrate, that the amended design performs equally to the previous design.

2. Part of such evidence was given in informal document INF.37 (47th session),

where test results from the Trauzl-test showed that the obtained volumes would be

the same, for the previous and for the new standard detonator design.

3. Another possibility to compare the detonator’s performance was discussed

during the 47th session of the Working Group on Explosives, which is to consider

data from the so called underwater-test. This test measures the shock energy of a



ST/SG/AC.10/42, para. 15).


Secretariat Distr.: General 29 March 2016 Original: English

40

detonator by recording the maximum peak pressure and the time for the collapse of

the gas bubble generated, when a detonator is fired under water.

4. A number of tests have been performed in accordance with EN 13763

“Explosives for civil uses – Detonators and relays”, part 15 “Determination of

equivalent initiating capability”. The European standard covers this test with many

technical details. Relevant experimental parameter are: a water tank with 500 litre

volume is used, and that the pressure gauge is placed at a distance of 400 mm from

the detonator. Distance of both shall be at least 200 mm to the walls of the tank and

400 mm under the water surface. Test results for each two detonators of the previous

and of the new design are reproduced in the annex to this document.

Proposal

5. It is proposed that, on the basis of experimental evidence given in this and

previous papers, the specification of the standard detonator, is amended. The

amended design shall be based on the proposal in ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2015/26, taking

into account the comments given in the report of the Working Group on Explosives

(Informal document INF.53, 47th session).

41

Annex

Under water tests results with the standard detonator

1. The following graphs show pressure traces recorded at BAM (Federal

Institute for Materials Research and Testing, Germany). The tests are referenced by

their original numbering as V20 and V21 for the original detonator design (0.6 g

PETN main charge, Copper shell, produced by dyniTEC in Germany). For

comparison a detonator with 0.6 g PETN main charge and a Copper shell produced

by Austin Detonator, Czech Republic, which contains all elements of the new

standard detonator design, was also subjected twice to the underwater test numbered

V15 and V16. A table summarizes the values taken from the original data.

42

Date Test

no.

Detonator

design

Peak pressure

[MPa]

Time till collapse

[ms]

2015-

09-02

V20 Old 8.41 24.04

2015-

09-02

V21 Old 8.26 24.02

2015-

09-02

V15 New 8.23 23.83

2015-

09-02

V16 New 8.30 23.88

43

参考資料 No.7








Review of tests in parts I and II of the Manual of Tests and Criteria

Manual of Tests and Criteria

Proposal for replacing dibutyl phthalate(DBP) in

Koenen Test

Transmitted by the expert from France3

Introduction

1. Dibutyl phthalate (DBP) is used in the test for calibrating the heating rate

which should be 3.3 0.3 K/s from 135°C to 285°C. It holds for Koenen test

descriptions in Part I of the Manual i.e. Test 1(b), Test 2(b), Test 8(c) and in Part II

i.e. Test E.1.

2. DBP is forbidden for general use within the European Union because it has

been identified as substance of very high concern within the EU’s REACH

regulation. For that reason France undertook a research for a suitable replacement

for DBP, (see informal document INF.40), presented at the forty-seventh session of

the Sub-Committee. Based on the comments made – see also section 6 of informal

document INF.53 (47th session) and report ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/94, para.13 – France

finalized its research taking into account the heat capacity as part of the

specifications for the replacement substance.



ST/SG/AC.10/42, para. 15).


Secretariat Distr.: General 4 April 2016 Original: English

44

Discussion

3. As reported in informal document INF.53 (47th session), the Working Group

on Explosives suggested that the use of synthetic oils rather than natural oils might

be a viable solution to the problem described by France. As France previously

identified one mineral oil and one silicone oil as synthetic oils suitable for replacing

DBP, it was examined in the meantime which from the above two candidates would

be the best option i.e. in the view of retaining a single specification.

4. The silicone oil tested which gave satisfactory results in terms of heating rate

i.e. 3.47 0.20 K/s between 135°C and 285°C, see informal document INF.40 (47th

session, para.5), has the following chemical composition, properties and availability:

• Chemical composition: siloxanes and silicones, dimethyl (CAS-No 63148-

62-9);

• Heat capacity (specific heat): 1.46 J/g.K at 25°C, to be compared to

1.71 J/g.K for DBP and to 2.13 J/g.K for mineral oils;

• Low flammability: flash point 300°C (572°F) determined in closed cup

apparatus;

• Auto-ignition temperature: ˃ 400°C (752°F);

• Melting point/freezing point: - 55°C (- 67°F);

• Relative density: 0.96 at 20°C (68°F);

• Worldwide available with open technical information.

5. This silicone oil appears an appropriate substance for replacing DBP

especially due to its heat capacity lower than the heat capacity of mineral oils and to

its thermal stability and low flammability.

6. Due to the restriction for use of DBP within the European Union, French

laboratories e.g. from defence and industry areas are currently on the way to adopt

temporarily the above silicone oil as replacement substance, before the final

decision for replacement is taken.

7. The silicone oil could be specified by its apparent density and by its heat

capacity, with appropriate tolerancies for taking into account possible regional

variations in the manufacturing process and availability in various parts of the

world.

Proposal

8. It is proposed to replace in the test descriptions in sections 11.5.1.2.2,

12.5.1.2.2, 18.6.1.2.2 and 24.4.1.2.2, the sentence:

"Calibration involves heating a tube (fitted with a 1.5 mm orifice plate) filled

with 27 cm3 of dibutyl phthalate".

by:

"Calibration involves heating a tube (fitted with a 1.5 mm orifice plate) filled

with 27 cm3 of silicone oil, apparent density 0.96 ± 0.02 at 20°C and heat

capacity 1.46 ± 0.02 J/g.K at 25°C".

45

参考資料 No.8




Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport

of Dangerous Goods

Sub-Committee of Experts on the Globally

Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling

of Chemicals

Forty-ninth session Thirty-first session

Geneva, 27 June – 6 July 2016

Item 2 (h) of the provisional agenda

Explosives and related matters: Review of

Chapter 2.1 of the GHS

Geneva, 5-8 July 2016

Item 2 of the provisional agenda

Joint work with the Sub-Committee of Experts on

the Transport of Dangerous Goods (TDG Sub-

Committee)

Review of Chapter 2.1 of the GHS

Submitted by the Australian Explosives Industry and Safety

Group Inc. (AEISG)4

Introduction

1. This document is a preliminary presentation of the issues the Working Group

on Explosives is considering as it reviews Chapter 2.1 of GHS. It attempts to

address all the issues proposed by Australia in documents

ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2014/15 and ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2014/79, which was essentially a

complete review of Chapter 2.1 to identify and rectify implementation issues that

have arisen in the twenty or so years since the requirements were initially drafted.

This review has proceeded through email exchanges and will continue with a face to

face discussion in the meeting of the International Group of Experts on the

explosion risks of unstable substances (IGUS) in April 2016. Following the IGUS

meeting, draft text will be developed for discussion as an informal paper at the


by the Committee at its seventh session (see ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/56, annex III and

ST/SG/AC.10/42, para. 15).

United Nations ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/7−ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2016/2


46

Working Group on Explosives in June 2016. The informal document will be

circulated to the GHS and TDG sub-committees.

2. This document complements the work being done by Sweden on Chapter 2.1,

on the three workstreams described in informal document INF.13 (GHS, 29th

session).

Issues to be resolved

Issue 1: Definitions

3. Clarify: Pyrotechnic substances are defined as non-detonating. However,

flash powder is a pyrotechnic substance and it will detonate. In the fireworks default

classification table we have numerous “pyrotechnic articles” that have flash powder

in them.

4. To be resolved: Is flash powder outside the scope of a pyrotechnic substance

because it may detonate?

Issue 2: definitions

5. Clarify: The definitions are unchanged from the Model Regulations, however

part (c) of the definitions is based on the intended use or source of the substance.

6. To be resolved: what is the intent of defining explosives in terms of their

intended use or their source? How do we manage things like aluminium tube

manufactured to fabricate a detonator; is it an explosive article? Likewise, is

ammonium nitrate manufactured to be used to make ammonium nitrate emulsion

(ANE) an explosive? Or, is ANE an explosive because it is made to create an

explosive?

7. Comment: The current definition has been in the Model Regulations for

decades. Has it caused any problems? Do we need to change?

Issue 3: Label elements Table 2.1.2

8. Clarify: Some reference needs to be made to the position that labelling

requirements for explosives shall be limited to the explosive characteristic. The

speed of reaction of explosives makes it of academic interest only whether they have

functioned as a mass explosion or a projectile. In addition, there is little point for the

labelling requirements for nitroglycerin based explosives to warn people of the

health effects, or that the material may mass explode. (This information could be

reserved for the Safety Data Sheet).

9. To be resolved: The labelling elements in Table 2.1.2 of GHS.

Issue 4: Classification criteria 2.1.2.1 (a)

10. An anomaly has been identified in the different classification criteria for

Division 1.1 explosives used in transport of dangerous goods (2.1.1.4 (a) and GHS

(2.1.2.1 (a). The former refers to the explosion (of) the entire load; the latter refers to

the explosion (of) the entire quantity present. Logically, if the amount present (in a

test sample of one safety cartridge for example) all shoots at one go, then the

material is hazard division 1.1. So we have a logical inconsistency in the definition

which does not exist with the definition where reference is made to the entire load.

47

11. To be resolved: the definition of Division 1.1 explosives with respect to

transport and GHS. This may well be a translation problem, however it needs to be

resolved.

Issue 5: Unstable explosives, processing and the applicability of

GHS

12. The Working Group on Explosives has considered the concept of risk

analysis and managing explosives in processing operations. Two options are being

considered in working group drafts however neither is good enough; the issue needs

further work.

13. Part of the issue turns on the concept of “unstable” explosives, which possibly

arose from the original drafters of Chapter 2.1 of GHS translating “explosives too

dangerous (sensitive) to transport” from the Model Regulations. Earlier drafts

considered by the Working Group on Explosives in this area introduced the concept

of steady state and non-steady state explosives, but this too has its limitations.

14. It has been suggested that the term “unstable explosives” be broadened (or

delimited) to “Explosives not in transport configuration”.

15. This has a lot of merit as “unstable explosives” don’t exist except perhaps in a

reaction vessel and very sensitive explosives may be very stable but present extreme

risks to users.

16. To be resolved: clarification of the terms “unstable” and “insensitive” for

explosives labelling purposes and the scope of application of GHS with respect to

processing operations.

Issue 6: Criteria for explosives (current table 2.1.1)

17. Every chapter for every hazard class in the GHS incudes a table setting out

the criteria that define the hazard categories. The table for explosives (table 2.1.1)

defines the criteria only in terms of a core set of tests which are incomplete and

changing and adds only confusion to the criteria contained in the definitions for each

division.

18. Clarify: Does the table add any value; might it be deleted and might the

criteria be limited to what is in the definitions? Will its deletion adversely affect the

style of the GHS document?

19. Clarify: Will deletion of the table generate any subsequent problems with

respect to unstable explosives and those too insensitive to transport?

Issue 7: Hazard communication (2.1.3)

20. The current hazard statements have numerous anomalies which are being

addressed in the work being led by Sweden. Several elements are being put forward

in this debate:

21. To be resolved: The label elements in Table 2.1.2

(a) With regards to the hazard divisions: these divisions have no

meaning outside transport (and perhaps storage in some jurisdictions, but not

globally). The current state of discussion actually deals with inner packages,

which is already one step away from the transport situation. Once the

48

explosive is outside the inner packaging no clear distinction on hazard

division can be made anymore.

(b) There seems little point telling people whether they will

injured/killed by blast, shrapnel or intense heat as they would not have to

treat the explosive differently. Instructions for storage such as segregation

and separation will be on the Safety Data Sheet.

(c) Another example could be small inner packages of propellant:

inside the transport packaging they can be 1.3 or 1.4, but taken out of the box

(packaging) they could show “mass explosion-like” behaviour.

(d) Detonators present a particularly unusual case: depending on the

packaging they occur in 1.1B; 1.2B; 1.4B and 1.4S. But outside the

packaging they all behave the same. And the common hazard is “explosive”.

(e) The example of shaped charges is also relevant: in transport the

cavities have to face each other, outside the packaging that is not the case

anymore. So the hazard division will change but not the intrinsic hazard of

explosive.

(f) The hazard symbols for 1.5 and 1.6 are different from 1.1 yet the

hazards are identical.

(g) The hazard statements for Division 1.4 need scrutiny and

clarification as the scope of articles in Division 1.4 is extremely broad and so

are the hazards.

Issue 8: The decision logics in Figures 2.1.1 – 2.1.4

22. The introduction of the concept of risk analysis and managing explosives in

processing lends itself to a higher level flow chart that could obviate the need to

duplicate the figures that are already in the Manual of Tests and Criteria.

23. To be resolved: the needs of users of GHS with respect to the decision logic

flow charts. Can a simpler flow chart lead users to the information they need?

49

参考資料 No.9





of Dangerous Goods


Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling

of Chemicals




Explosives and related matters: Review of

Chapter 2.1 of the GHS


Item 2 of the provisional agenda

Joint work with the Sub-Committee of Experts on

the Transport of Dangerous Goods (TDG Sub-

Committee)

Revisions to GHS section 2.1.3

Transmitted by the Sporting Arms and Ammunition

Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI)5

Introduction

1. Currently there are various ongoing initiatives to revise the treatment of

explosives within the GHS. An informal correspondence group has been working

under the leadership of Sweden on a limited revision of classification principles,

centering on section 2.1.3 of the GHS (Hazard Communication). Also there is a

revision of the Manual of Tests and Criteria (MTC) to integrate it with GHS, led by

the Chairman of the Working Group on Explosives of the TDG Sub-Committee.

These initiatives have highlighted the need for further work on Chapter 2.1 as a

whole.

2. SAAMI presents this proposal to provide an analysis of current relevant

topics and possible solutions, but limited to section 2.1.3 of the GHS. It is our intent

that this proposal be considered by the Working Group on Explosives. Explosives


by the Committee at its seventh session (see ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/92, paragraph 95,

ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/60, annex III and ST/SG/AC.10/42, para. 15).



50

experts have identified a variety of issues with section 2.1.3 which should be

resolved. Given the effectiveness of the current legislative and regulatory systems

controlling explosives, simple solutions could address current questions raised by

the creation of GHS.

3. Section 2.1.3 consists of a table and a note. SAAMI proposes one change to

the table and a rewrite of the note. This document first gives some background

information on explosives, and then discusses each different topic covered by the

existing and proposed notes, including “unstable” explosives, inner packagings

removed from their outer packaging, manufacturing and GHS classification of

explosives and derogations. SAAMI has proposed no change at this time to the

portion of the existing note dealing with the relation of Test Series 2 to the safety

data sheet (SDS) sections 2 and 9. Work was recently done on Section 9, lead by

Germany.

Unique aspects of the explosives classification scheme

4. The regulation of explosives dates back to their creation in the late 1800’s,

and the current international regulatory structure, and that of many nations, is

mature with great depth and diversity. Explosives are often regulated by dedicated

legislation and regulations governing their manufacture, transport, supply and use.

In some countries there is a central agency with regulatory authority for all

explosives in all sectors, and in such cases expert judgment is available to support

the use of discretion to ensure workable requirements. In other countries there may

be multiple national agencies involved with different sectors, with some authority

residing in local authorities, who do have limited explosives expertise.

5. Separate detailed regimes implemented by different agencies govern the

sectors of manufacture, transport, supply and use (all of which include storage). The

most significant commonality is the classification derived from the Manual of Tests

and Criteria or adaptations of it. Transport and supply and use share a reliance on

classifications, while manufacturing is risk based, but there are still impacts from

classification. Therefore, the classifications derived from the Manual of Tests and

Criteria impact all sectors.

6. Different types of explosives vary to extremes in the level of hazard and risk,

with consequences ranging from catastrophic to none. These different hazard levels

are regulated according to the degree of risk or hazard they present, and placed into

Divisions 1.1 to 1.4. Other classifications are risk based, e.g. Divisions 1.5 and 1.6,

i.e. they are not based on intrinsic properties.

7. Unlike other chemicals, explosives classifications are typically performed by

government, and are not allowed to be self-classified. Testing is the norm rather than

the exception. Also, the controls on mixtures go far beyond normal GHS controls,

with each variation subject to further government approval and perhaps testing. It is

not necessary to regulate mixtures separately, as self-classification of mixtures is not

allowed.

8. The Manual of Tests and Criteria accounts for intrinsic properties, but gives

greater precedence to the mitigating effects of packaging and/or incorporation into

articles. In the Manual of Tests and Criteria, explosives are classified as prepared for

transport. Changes to packaging are often not allowed for transport without new

government approvals. Since transport could occur at any time during the life cycle,

and the process of getting revised approvals is lengthy and expensive, the original

packaging is usually retained until use. Outer packaging may be discarded in retail

sale and display. This is acceptable based on quantity limitations and the continuing

mitigating effect of the inner packaging.

9. Articles can behave in a substantially less hazardous manner than the

substances they incorporate, due to their robust physical nature and encapsulation of

51

the explosive(s). In many scenarios, packaging greatly mitigates the intrinsic

properties of an explosive substance or article. For combination packagings the

inner packaging often has the most decisive effect, with the outer packaging

providing an additional secondary effect. Some examples are trays for primers, tubes

for detonators and bottles for propellants. The most important function of packaging

besides containment is to prevent propagation from one explosive to an adjacent

one, so that ignitions occur sequentially in an incident, not in mass.

Consequences of classification

10. Divisions 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 are generally treated as a group. This is not

explicitly stated, but is common across different implementations of the Model

Regulations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. This group is generally subjected

to stringent controls, and is not viable for mainstream commerce. It requires

specialized investments in carriers for transport and buildings for supply. Examples

for road transport are: carrier fitness reviews; specialized licenses; specially

designed trucks with testing and certifications; specially trained and licensed

drivers; no ability for overnight journeys without 2 drivers; security escorts in some

countries; security plans and their requirements; and abnormally high insurance only

available from specialty insurers. Aircraft carriage is forbidden. Sea transport is

severely limited, and when possible, may have costs 10 times the amount required

for other goods. Most ports and carriers do not allow them, and if a strategically

located port does not allow explosives then commerce is not global and often limited

to a region. In supply this group requires dedicated storage buildings and may not be

manufactured in normal factories, stored in normal warehouses or sold to the public

by normal methods, because these explosives are not allowed in the buildings except

in minute quantities. Use is limited to blasting operations, professional fireworks,

military and manufacturing into other goods, as primary examples, i.e. not public

use. When remanufactured, which is a common activity, the resulting goods are

often less hazardous due to incorporation of the explosive into articles, and

additional packaging.

11. Division 1.4 “other than S” constitutes a middle group. The restrictions cited

above do not apply; it may not require specialized vehicles or insurance, and is

generally accepted by normal road carriers. Difficulty is still encountered for ocean

journeys. These explosives may not be shipped as cargo on passenger aircraft, but

are allowed on cargo aircraft. Storage and retail display quantities are limited, but

the quantity restrictions are generally high enough to allow these activities to occur

alongside other goods using normal methods in commerce.

12. Division 1.4, compatibility group S goods are the third group. This group

most closely approximates the treatment which is applied to other dangerous goods,

although still more vigorously controlled. Difficulties are still encountered in sea

transport, but usually alternatives can be found. They may be shipped as cargo on

passenger aircraft, which is the only form of air transport that can reach lesser

developed countries. Many exceptions apply, sometimes based on the division as a

whole (e.g. no pictogram in sea transport), or sometimes based on use (e.g. nail gun

cartridges), or certain items (e.g. “handheld safe”) or societal determinations (e.g.

exclusion of automotive air bags from explosives).

13. SAAMI leaves explanation of the risk-based regimes of Divisions 1.5 and 1.6

to specialists in those fields. However, these tend to not be reliant on packaging. The

former are based on insensitivity of the substance, while the the latter are based on

the insensitivity of the article.

52

“Unstable explosives” in GHS Table 2.1.2

14. Explosives are classified into six divisions for transport by the test series in

the Manual of Tests and Criteria. The tests in Test Series 3 and 4 do not assign a

division, but are used to determine whether a product can be transported at all. They

assess whether a substance is “too thermally unstable for transport”, or if a substance

or article is “too dangerous for transport” based on ignition sensitivity. These tests

are pass/fail. Substances failing Test Series 3 tests for thermal stability, impact and

friction sensitivity are not eligible for transport. Articles which fail Test Series 4

may be redesigned and/or repackaged to pass the test as configured for transport.

15. GHS has created a seventh division of explosives, and termed it “unstable

explosives”, which accounts for all explosives which are not approved for transport.

However, the use of the term “unstable” in supply and use implies that they are

unstable for handling at any time other than small scale laboratory research, e.g.

they could explode if touched. Perhaps, in the incorporation of the transport scheme

into GHS, the phrase “for transport” was simply eliminated. In this particular

instance, dissolving the link with transport is undesirable, as the test criteria apply to

the transport package. Rather than use the term “unstable”, it might be better to call

this division what it is – explosives which are not in a configuration approved for

transport.

16. Explosives which fail the stability tests may still be stable. For instance, Test

Series 4(b)(ii) is a 12-meter drop test. If the explosive ignites, regardless if the

results are benign, e.g. stay within the package, it is a failure. If this was applied to

other dangerous goods it would surely cause some undesirable consequences. The

purpose of this test, which was lost to most experts but recently discovered, was to

prevent ignition when loading and unloading ships, in case a package was dropped

(twelve meters was used to approximate the height of a ship above the dock).

Explosives can fail this test and present very little hazard in use. They are not

unstable and may be handled safely. In retail display, an inner package which might

fail the 12-meter drop test may be knocked off a shelf onto the floor with no result,

and certainly no result classifiable as 1.1, 1.2 or 1.3. While failure of Test Series 3

would cause more concern, particularly thermal stability, these thresholds for

transport may not apply to use, and certainly do not prohibit their use in

manufacture.

17. In the past the term “unstable” has never appeared on any labels. If it is now

placed on a label, this term would create concern, and generally be overregulated by

officials charged with controlling it. It would be impossible to explain that an

explosive labelled “unstable” is actually stable and get acceptance by building and

fire code authorities.

18. SAAMI proposes to change the name of this division to “In a form not

classified for transport”. Since the division name does not appear on labels, it would

only be encountered on SDS, and not on packagings. This terminology has the

potential to solve most problems for manufacturing and use.

Inner packagings removed from their outer packaging

19. One issue in the current review is the removal of inner packagings from their

outer packaging. Since the Manual of Tests and Criteria puts heavy emphasis on the

mitigating effects of packaging, this could be a concern. Inner packagings should

normally not be removed from their outer packagings until in a place of use (e.g. a

53

blasting site), or purchase by the public. Some transport regulations allow for

removal from the outer packagings enroute to use (e.g. the IME SLP 22 magazine

on trucks). Another scenario to bear in mind is explosives prepared for use but then

temporarily not used and stored.

20. SAAMI’s principle concern is to recognize the needs of retail display. The

public selects and purchases explosive products, typically in Division 1.4, after they

have been removed from their outer packaging. They take them home and store and

use them without the outer packaging. Some examples are small arms ammunition,

ammunition handloading components such as smokeless powder and primers,

historical firearm propellants, nail gun (fixing) cartridges, fireworks and model

rocket motors. These products may have quantity controls in building and fire codes

for warehousing, retail display, homes and in factories which use them for re-

manufacture. Diverse requirements and exceptions strive to appropriately apply

controls to different products and scenarios. Many of these controls reference the

Division 1.4 classification, and a label showing Division 1.1, 1.2 or 1.3 could

disqualify a product from this regime. This impact would be too severe and should

be avoided.

21. For sectors other than transport, unpackaging and repackaging which are

unauthorized for transport are nonetheless acceptable if the warnings are modified as

shown in the note above. This practice should be allowed when necessary, but

otherwise discouraged, and relabeling requirements would serve as an incentive to

keeping the original packaging until use in most circumstances.

22. When inner packagings are partially unpackaged by removal from their outer

packagings, the original inners should be retained without alteration, otherwise the

warnings must be modified as shown above. Alteration of inner packagings is

already an existing issue controlled by supply and use regulation, and should be the

primary concern, rather than preventing disposal of the outer packagings in

subsequent to partial use; retail display; or use and storage by the public.

23. The current Note 1 to Table 2.1.2 reverts unpackaged or repackaged

explosives to warnings representing a Division 1.1 mass explosion hazard. It is

silent on inners removed from their outers. It allows the original hazard statements

to be retained if they are “shown” to still be accurate, which implies a requirement

for testing or analogy to past testing. It has been agreed in the current work to avoid

new testing requirements.

24. SAAMI proposes to replace the existing Note 1 with the following text:

NOTE: The classification of explosives is normally performed in the

transport packaging, and the resulting classification may be packaging

dependent. Hence, also the GHS labelling of any inner packaging may in

some cases not give a correct description of the behaviour of the substance,

mixture or article in question. Explosives in a form other than classified for

transport shall have the following label elements:

(a) Symbol: exploding bomb; (b) Signal word: “Danger”; and (c) Hazard statement: “explosive”.

Inner packagings of Division 1.4 explosives in a form classified for transport

but absent the transport packaging may be labelled according to Table 2.1.2.

25. This text aligns with regulations currently in effect and would not result in

major changes. It might provide a vehicle in the future to improve the clarity of

existing regulations.

26. When considering changes to GHS in this regard, the potential impacts of

strict implementation by non-expert authorities must be borne in mind. In addition to

national regulations, factories and retail locations are also governed by local

54

building and fire codes. Local authorities sometimes use the SDS Section 14 as a

prescriptive, sole parameter, rather than Manual of Tests and Criteria classifications

or government transport approvals, even though the SDS Section 14 is merely a

reflection of these. Local authorities normally regulate without resources to maintain

expertise in explosives, and are driven by the perception of liability. Severe hardship

already results from overly strict enforcement on factories and retail operations

based on SDS Section 14 classifications.

27. Labelling the inner packagings of Division 1.4 explosive with a generic

“explosive” statement or with a 1.1, 1.2 or 1.3 classification would increase

confusion and liability for local government which already struggles with

explosives. In many jurisdictions a stricter label would result in prohibition of

existing safe practices and disruption of commerce. There is no compelling trend of

accidents or reasons to change the existing system. Therefore, alternative hazard

statements should be avoided except as a deterrent to unnecessary alterations to

packaging.

Manufacturing

28. It has been thought that GHS does not apply to manufacturing. However, at

least one major GHS-implementing regulation covers manufacturing. While this

implementation includes performance-based alternatives to GHS labelling in the

workplace for equipment and portable process containers under direct supervision, it

generally requires incoming chemicals to retain their GHS labelling until use.

Explosives manufacturing frequently relies heavily on the purchase of other

explosives as ingredients or components, and these have been placed on the market

and bear GHS labels. SAAMI is of the opinion that it is inevitable that provisions

will be made for these labels to be retained inside the factory until use, for example

driven by enforcement personnel of worker safety authorities around the world, who

regularly inspect factories.

29. SAAMI is open to arguments to the contrary. However, absent any clear

exception, GHS must be assumed to impact manufacturing. It would provide

industry with more stability for GHS to clearly note that it applies to manufacturing,

and proactively develop an exceptions system, similar to the one just described.

Otherwise a proliferation of differing approaches to manufacturing may occur.

Specific text could be developed in the context of the greater re-work of Chapter

2.1.

30. Meanwhile, alternative equivalents to GHS hazard communication are

necessary for manufacturing, and SAAMI reflects this for manufacturing in the

current work on Section 2.1.3. While important in manufacturing, GHS hazard

communication is not the primary basis of safety, as workers are expected to handle

the materials in hazardous operations requiring training and expertise. Explosives

manufacturing operations are normally subject to performance-based regulations

including risk assessments, for example failure modes and effects analyses. Each

individual operation is evaluated for probability and consequence of ignition and

effects. Engineering controls are instituted, and minimum separation distances from

surrounding industry and homes apply. When necessary, in-process classifications

may be determined by special test procedures extending beyond those found in the

Manual of Tests and Criteria, and quantitative risk assessments may be performed

based on sensitivity data. Manufacturing is not a steady state activity, and the

hazards change dynamically from one step to another in the process, so a label or

SDS may not remain accurate from one step to the next.

31. SAAMI proposes a simple but multi-purpose text to control manufacturing

within Section 2.1.3:

55

“GHS labelling shall not apply in manufacture for those explosives not in a

form classified for transport. Risk management regulations govern the

manufacture of explosives.”

32. We believe this text aligns with existing major implementations and the intent

of GHS. This solution:

(a) leaves GHS classification in place for manufacturing but eliminates

labelling for unpackaged explosives;

(b) retains labelling requirements for products already placed on the

market and purchased until they are removed from their packaging for re-

manufacturing; and

(c) notes that GHS is not the primary regulation for explosives in

manufacturing, thereby eliminating jurisdictional issues in current

regulations.

Classification of explosives and derogations

33. Test Series 2 is used to determine whether a substance or mixture that is not

intended for use as an explosive has explosives properties. It may have ramifications

for products that, regardless of intent, are desired to be classified outside of

explosives in the regulatory system or by competent authorities.

34. Competent authorities must retain discretion to remove products from the

class of explosives, even if they have explosives properties. This could be for

societal, security or commercial reasons, or when the predominant hazard is not

explosive. These determinations are implemented by competent authorities using

expert judgment, and are not self-classified by industry. It is not politically possible

for GHS to contravene this by requiring explosives labelling on these products, and

therefore an exit should be provided. Examples are mass societal needs like air bags.

The European Union moved nail gun (fixing) cartridges into pyrotechnics for

practical reasons, even though they are not pyrotechnics. More examples are

military ordnance where the predominant hazard is not from explosion, veterinary

tranquilizing darts and handheld-safe devices. If a product is called explosive, at

least on the label, difficulty will be encountered because public perception equates

“explosive” with mass explosion.

35. SAAMI proposes the following text:

“Substances and mixtures that show positive results in Test Series 2 shall be

labelled for the explosive properties, as shall articles that contain them,

unless classified otherwise by a competent authority.”.

Relation of Test Series 2 to Safety Data Sheet sections 2

and 9

36. SAAMI is not proposing a change to the existing portion of the note in

section 2.1.3 dealing with SDS. The SDS may still be used to communicate hazards

in the workplace, regardless of packaging or intent for transport.

Proposal

37. Subject to possible modification by the Working Group on Explosives,

replace GHS Section 2.1.3 with the following text (new text is underlined; deleted

text is struck through).

56

“2.1.3 Hazard communication

General and specific considerations concerning labelling equirements are

provided in Hazard communication: Labelling (Chapter 1.4). Annex 1

contains summary tables about classification and labelling. Annex 3 contains

examples of precautionary statements and pictograms which can be used

where allowed by the competent authority.

Table 2.1.2: Label elements for explosives

Unstable

Explosive

In a form

not

classified

for

transport

Division 1.1 Division

1.2

Division

1.3

Division

1.4

Division

1.5

Division

1.6

Symbol Exploding

bomb

Exploding

bomb

Exploding

bomb

Exploding

bomb

Exploding

bomb;

or

1.4 on orange

backgrounda

1.5 on orange

backgrounda

1.6 on orange

backgrounda

Signal

word

Danger Danger Danger Danger Warning Danger No signal word

Hazard

statement

Unstable

Explosive

Explosive;

mass

explosion

hazard

Explosive;

severe

projection hazard

Explosive;

fire, blast or

projection hazard.

Fire or projection

hazard

May mass

explode in fire

No hazard

statement

a Applies to substances, mixtures and articles subject to some regulatory

purposes (e.g. transport)

NOTE:

The classification of explosives is normally performed in the transport

packaging, and the resulting classification may be packaging dependent.

Hence, also the GHS labelling of any inner packages may in some cases not

give a correct description of the behaviour of the substance, mixture or

article in question.

Explosives in a form other than classified for transport shall have the

following label elements:

(a) Symbol: exploding bomb;

(b) Signal word: “Danger”; and

(c) Hazard statement: “explosive”.

Inner packagings of Division 1.4 explosives in a form classified for transport

but absent the transport packaging may be labelled according to Table 2.1.2.

GHS labelling shall not apply in manufacture for those explosives not in a

form classified for transport. Risk management regulations govern the

manufacture of explosives.

57

Substances and mixtures that show positive results in Test Series 2 shall be

labelled for the explosive properties, as shall articles that contain them,

unless classified otherwise by a competent authority.

Substances and mixtures, as supplied, with a positive result in Test Serie 2 in

Part I, Section 12, of the UN Recommendations on the Transport of

Dangerous Goods, Manual of Tests and Criteria, which are exempted from

classification as explosives (based on a negative result in Test Series 6 in

Part I, Section 16 of the UN Recommendations on the Transport of

Dangerous Goods, Manual of Tests and Criteria,) still have explosive

properties. The user should be informed of these intrinsic explosive

properties because they have to be considered for handling – especially if the

substance or mixture is removed from its packaging or is repackaged – and

for storage. For this reason, the explosive properties of the substance or

mixture should be communicated in Section 2 (Hazard identification) and

Section 9 (Physical and chemical properties) of the Safety Data Sheet in

accordance with Table 1.5.2, and other sections of the Safety Data Sheet, as

appropriate.

58

参考資料 No.10





Forty-ninth session


Item 2 (i) of the provisional agenda

Explosives and related matters: miscellaneous

Additional entries for special provision 347

Transmitted by the expert from Canada6

Introduction

1. At the twenty-ninth session of the Sub-Committee, the expert from Canada

made a proposal for an additional test for determining 1.4S classification

(ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2006/62). The Working Group on Explosives reviewed and

supported the proposal. It was requested that the expert from Canada prepare a new

proposal, including additional text to be inserted in the Manual of Tests and Criteria

(informal document INF.65 (29th session)). At the thirty-first session of the Sub-

Committee, the expert from Canada submitted (a) an information paper containing a

detailed example of the application of the proposed test to perforating charges

informal document (INF.43 (31st session)) and (b) a working paper containing new

text for Section 16 (ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2007/29). The majority of the Working

Group was in favour of provisional acceptance of the proposal from Canada. At the

thirty-fourth session of the Sub-Committee, the expert from Canada submitted a

revised proposal based on the comments received at the twenty-third session

(ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2008/89) which was accepted by the Sub-Committee as the new

Test Series 6(d). An amendment to box 33 of Figures 10.3 and 10.8 was

consequently adopted in Revision 5 of the Manual of Tests and Criteria to ensure

that “hazardous effects outside the package” in case of an accidental initiation be

taken into consideration for a Compatibility Group S.



ST/SG/AC.10/42, para. 15).



59

2. At the thirty-first session of the Sub-Committee, the report of the Working

Group on Explosives (informal document INF.45 (31st session)) included a

clarification that the proposal was not only for shaped charges, but that items like

detonators, commercial charges, bursting charges, etc. should also be subjected to

the new test. Several experts of the Working Group also commented that the

proposal from Canada would fill a gap in the Model Regulations since only half of

the definition for Compatibility Group S was being addressed. At the thirty-third

session, the expert from Canada included a series of test results as part of its

proposal (ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2008/11) which was used to establish a list of UN

entries for which the proposed test had to be conducted.

3. At the forty-fifth session of the Sub-Committee, the Institute of Makers of

Explosives (IME) and the Sporting Arms & Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute

(SAAMI) proposed an amendment to Figures 10.3 and 10.8 to limit box 33 which

asks the question, “Are there hazardous effects outside the package” to the 8 UN

entries of special provision 347 (ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2014/1).

4. At the forty-eight session of the Sub-Committee, the expert from Canada

recommended reviewing the list of UN entries for articles and substances whose

classification is normally package dependant or that are generic, and to apply SP

347 to those entries as well (ST/SG/AC/AC.10/C.3/2015/42). The Working Group

on Explosives upported applying SP 347 (informal document INF.53 (48th session)

to the “not otherwise specified” (N.O.S) entries cited in the paper and to UN 0367

(Fuzes, detonating).

Discussion

5. Conducting a Test Series 6 (c) does not allow assessing the behaviour of

some substances or articles when their initiation is a fire source rather than their

normal means of initiation, nor does it allow assessing the effectiveness of a

package to contain hazardous effects in situations where the package is degraded by

fire.

6. The expert from Canada recommends reviewing the list of UN entries for

articles and substances whose classification as 1.4S that are generic and to UN 0367

(Fuzes, detonating) that is normally package dependant, and to apply SP 347 to

those entries as well. Generic entries normally warrant more systematic testing.

Proposal

7. The expert from Canada recommends applying SP 347 to the following UN

entries:

UN 0349 (ARTICLES, EXPLOSIVE, N.O.S.)

UN 0367 (FUZES, DETONATING); these articles contain detonating

substance(s) and their classification is packaging dependant

UN 0384 (COMPONENTS, EXPLOSIVE TRAIN, N.O.S.)

UN 0481 (SUBSTANCES, EXPLOSIVE, N.O.S.)

____________

60

参考資料 No.11





Forty-ninth session




Amendment to section 1.1.2 of the Manual of Tests and

Criteria

Transmitted by the Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME)7

Introduction

1. During the meeting of the Working Group on Explosives (EWG) at the 48th

session of the TDG Sub-Committee, it was noted by the EWG8 that a reference to

“testing authority” in Section 1.1.2 of the Manual of Tests and Criteria (MTC), 6th

revised edition, incorrectly implies that the testing authority has the responsibility

for classification of dangerous goods. IME agreed to submit a proposal for the 49th

session to correct this misconception.

7 In accordance with the programme of work of the Sub-Committee for 2015–2016

approved by the Committee at its seventh session (see ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/92, paragraph 95

and ST/SG/AC.10/42, para. 15).

8 Informal document INF.53 (TDG, 48th session), para. 12.



61

Discussion

2. Working with the Chairman of the EWG to develop this proposal, it was

noticed that a similar reference also appears in Appendix 6, paragraph 2.3 of the

MTC; therefore, this proposal will address both references.

3. For certain dangerous goods, the responsibility for classification lies with the

offering party (manufacturer, distributor, exporter, end user, etc.) and in other

instances (for example, Class 1 Explosives), that responsibility lies with the

competent authority.

4. Testing bodies participate in the classification process by performing the

appropriate tests and making classification recommendations based upon the results

of those tests. To adequately execute their duties, testing bodies must be competent

to perform classification tests and to make informed recommendations for

classification based upon the results of those tests. Therefore, IME proposes to

change the words “testing authority” to “testing body” and to remove references

implying that testing authorities or bodies have the responsibility for classification

of dangerous goods.

Proposal

5. Amend the second sentence of paragraph 1.1.2 of the MTC replacing the

reference to “testing authority” with “testing body” and removing the reference to

responsibility for classification as shown below:

“It therefore assumes competence on the part of the testing authority

bodyand leaves responsibility for classification with them.”.

6. Amend the second sentence of paragraph 2.3 of Appendix 6 of the MTC

replacing the reference to “testing authority” with “testing body” and removing the

reference to responsibility for classification as shown below:

“The remarks 1.1.2 from section 1 "General introduction" are

emphasized that competence on the part of the testing authority body

is assumed and responsibility for classification is left with them.”.

62

参考資料 No.12





of Dangerous Goods




Clarification of the classification of ammonium nitrate

based fertilizers – draft amendments to the Model

Regulations and the Manual of Tests and Criteria

Transmitted by the expert from Sweden9

Introduction

1. Ammonium nitrate (AN) based fertilizers may be transported under UN 2067

in Division 5.1 (oxidizing substances), provided that special provisions (SP) 186,

306 and 307 are met, or under UN 2071 in Class 9 provided that SP193 and 306 are

met. Particularly SP307, which contains a number of criteria on the composition

grouped into three categories (a)-(c), is written in a way that is not always easily

understood. Apart from quite entangled wording and some fertilizer-specific

terminology that is not defined, criteria may even appear somewhat contradictory

due to some implicit understandings.

2. An example of what may appear to be contradictory criteria is that binary

fertilizers of AN and ammonium sulphate (AS) according to SP307(c) are not

allowed to contain more than 70% AN, while SP307(a) or (b) do not state any



ST/SG/AC.10/42, para. 15).



63

explicit limit on the amount of AS for fertilizers with a higher AN-content. Another

example is that it is nowhere stated how to classify a fertilizer that does not fit into

SP307 due to too high content of AN, which may lead non-experts to the absurd

conclusion that such a fertilizer is not a dangerous good. Furthermore, it is not clear

whether fertilizers should ever be subjected to testing for their oxidising properties,

and whether they can be excluded from Division 5.1 on basis of this.

3. In order to improve the situation, an ad hoc working group under IGUS10,

consisting of experts from Sweden, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, France

and Germany, took it upon themselves to clarify the United Nations classification of

AN-based fertilizers. This concerns the provisions of SP307 in particular, but

comprises all provisions applicable to fertilizers in the Model Regulations and in the

Manual of Tests and Criteria, including Special Provisions 186, 193 and 306. The

work took the form of constructing a flow chart for the classification of fertilizers,

which lessens the possibilities for misunderstandings and gaps. A draft flow chart

was presented in informal document INF.34 to the Sub-Committee at its 48th

session in December 2015, and subsequently discussed in the Working Group on

Explosives. Since IGUS has no formal status in the Sub-Committee, this paper, like

the previous one, is submitted by the expert from Sweden on behalf of the IGUS ad

hoc working group.

4. Since last December, the working group under IGUS has continued its efforts

to clarify the situation, on the basis of comments made and further discussions both

within the group and with representatives of the fertilizer industry. The outcomes of

this effort are proposals for amendments to the Model Regulations and to the

Manual of Tests and Criteria, as presented in annexes 1 and 2 to this document.

Some issues are still pending resolution, which is why at this point only draft

proposals for amendments are made. However, the working group anticipates that

formal proposals along the lines presented in annexes 1 and 2 will be made for the

50th session of the Sub-Committee in December 2016.

5. It needs to be emphasized that the aim of the work at this point is not to

introduce any new requirements or criteria for fertilizers – only to clarify the already

existing ones in order to avoid misinterpretations (deliberate or unintended) in the

classification of fertilizers. In annex 3 to this document (informal document INF.5),

a detailed explanation to how the proposed draft changes correspond to the current

provisions for classification of AN-based fertilizers is given. During the work,

however, a number of issues and inconsistencies have been identified which,

although not included in this document, could be subject to future proposals for

changes to the current provisions.

6. The expert from Sweden, on behalf of the working group, appreciates

comments to the draft amendments as presented herein. Since several of the criteria

for classification of AN-based fertilizers in Division 5.1 are intended to prevent

them from being able to behave explosively, the Sub-Committee may wish to

consider referring the discussions of this document to the Working Group on

Explosives. As already stated, the previous paper on this topic (informal document

INF.34 (48th session)) was discussed in that working group.

10 IGUS is the International Group of experts on the explosion risks of Unstable Substances,

which has been active in the field of hazardous materials, including dangerous goods, for over

50 years. Experts participate in IGUS due to their expertise, and not as representatives of their

country or organization. See www.igus-experts.org for further information.

http://www.igus-experts.org/

64

Annex 1

Proposals of amendments to the Model Regulations and

the Manual of Tests and Criteria

A. Changes to the Model Regulations

In Chapter 2.5

• Renumber current 2.5.2.1.2 into 2.5.2.1.3.

• Insert new 2.5.2.1.2, reading:

“By exception, solid ammonium nitrate based fertilizers shall be classified in

accordance with the procedure as set out in the Manual of Tests and Criteria,

Part III, Section 39.”

In Chapter 2.9

• Insert a new paragraph in section 2.9.2, reading:

“Ammonium nitrate based fertilizers

2071 AMMONIUM NITRATE BASED FERTILIZERS

Ammonium nitrate based fertilizers shall be classified in accordance with the

procedure as set out in the Manual of Tests and Criteria, Part III, Section 39.”

• Under “Other substances …”, delete “2071 AMMONIUM NITRATE

BASED FERTILIZERS”.

In Chapter 3.2

• For UN No. 2067, delete 186 and 306 from column (6) Special provisions;

• For UN No. 2071, delete 186 and 193 from column (6) Special provisions,

and add 307.

In Chapter 3.3

• Delete Special provision 186;


• Change Special provision 306 into.

“This entry may only be used for technical grade, non-fertilizer grade

ammonium nitrate that is too insensitive for acceptance into Class 1 when

tested in accordance with Test Series 2 (see Manual of Tests and Criteria,

Part I). See also UN No. 0222.”

• Change Special provision 307 into:

“This entry may only be used for uniform ammonium nitrate based fertilizers.

They shall be classified in accordance with the procedure as set out in the

Manual of Tests and Criteria, Part III, Section 39.”

65

• In Special provision 370, before ‘ammonium nitrate’ add ‘technical grade,

non-fertilizer grade’ (twice).

B. Changes to the Manual of Tests and Criteria

In Section 34:

• Add the following to paragraph 34.3.1:

“By exception, solid ammonium nitrate based fertilizers are not classified as

oxidizing solids on the basis of results from tests O.1 or O.3, since the

hazardous properties are not sufficiently described by the outcome of tests for

oxidizing properties. Instead, such fertilizers are classified on the basis of

acquired experience and knowledge of their hazardous behaviour. They shall

be classified in accordance with the procedure as set out in Section 39.”

In Section 38:

• Throughout the Section, change ‘ammonium nitrate fertilizers’ into

‘ammonium nitrate based fertilizers’ (occurs six times in Section 38).

• In paragraph 38.2.1.1, change 193 into 307.

• Insert a new paragraph 38.2.3.3, reading:

“The overall classification procedure for ammonium nitrate based fertilizers

is set out in Section 39.”

After Section 38:

• Insert a new section 3911, reading as in annex 2:

11 Insertion of this new section has consequences for the Table of Contents of Part III (page

340) and for the General Table of Contents (page iv).

66

Annex 2

Draft new Section 39 for the Manual of Tests and

Criteria

Section 39

Classification procedure and criteria relating to ammonium

nitrate based fertilizers

39.1 Purpose

This section presents the United Nations scheme for the classification of solid

ammonium nitrate based fertilizers as referred to in the Model Regulations, Chapter

3.3, special provision 307.

39.2 Scope

Any new solid fertilizer composition based on ammonium nitrate shall be subjected

to the classification procedure as set out in 39.4.

This procedure does not cover the classification of technical grade ammonium

nitrate (UN Nos. 1942 and 0222 for transport).

39.3 Definitions

39.3.1 An ammonium nitrate based fertilizer is a fertilizer in which

ammonium nitrate is the predominant source of nitrogen (N).

39.3.2 A compound fertilizer is a fertilizer that contains at least two of the

three primary nutrients nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K).

39.3.3 Fertilizer grade ammonium nitrate (FGAN) is an ammonium

nitrate based fertilizer that is used for agricultural purposes, in contrast to technical

grade ammonium nitrate (TGAN) that is used for e.g. the production of explosives.

39.3.4 In determining the ammonium nitrate content, all nitrate ions for

which a molecular equivalent of ammonium ions is present in the fertilizer shall be

calculated as ammonium nitrate.

39.3.5 Combustible substances as referred to in paragraph 39.4 include

also non-organic substances that can be oxidized, e.g. elemental sulphur. For organic

substances the content of combustibles is expressed in terms of the carbon content.

39.3.6 Materials that are incompatible with ammonium nitrate include e.g.

urea, acids, superphosphates with free acid, elemental sulphur, sulphides and most

transition metals, including heavy metals (e.g. copper) and chlorides. Note however

that this listing is not exhaustive. Incompatible materials should not be added

deliberately.

39.4 Classification procedure

39.4.1 Solid ammonium nitrate based fertilizers are classified on the basis of

composition, experience and knowledge of their hazardous behaviour. Occasionally,

the classification is complemented by testing for the ability to undergo self-

67

sustaining decomposition or for explosive properties. These principles are

condensed in the flowchart of 39.5.

39.4.2 UN No. 2067 may only be used for ammonium nitrate based fertilizers

that do not show explosive properties when tested in accordance with Test Series 2

of this Manual.

39.4.3 Ammonium nitrate based fertilizers that do not fulfil the requirements for

transport under UN No. 2067, can be transported under another suitable UN No.

provided that the suitability for transport is demonstrated and this is approved by the

competent authority. This may for instance be when contamination has occurred in

e.g. an accident, so that the fertilizer can be transported under a suitable UN No. e.g.

in Class 1 as approved by the competent authority.

39.4.4 Ammonium nitrate based fertilizers that meet composition limits relevant

for inclusion in the class of Explosives as set out in 39.5 shall be classified in that

class regardless of the results when tested in accordance with Test Series 2 of this

Manual.

39.4.5 Ammonium nitrate based fertilizers that meet composition limits relevant

for classification as Oxidizing solid as set out in 39.5 shall not be exempted from

that classification on the basis of the results from tests O.1 and/or O.3 in Section 34

of this Manual. See also paragraph 34.3.1 in Section 34 of this Manual.

39.4.6 Fertilizers that contain 70 % or more ammonium nitrate shall not contain

ammonium sulphate as nutrient, unless they are compound fertilizers with less than

90% ammonium nitrate and with at least 10% inorganic materials providing the P

and/or K.

39.4.7 Compound fertilizers that meet the composition limits relevant for

potential inclusion for transport in Class 9, shall be tested for their capability to

undergo self-sustaining decomposition according to the method given in paragraph

38.2.4 of this Manual (test S.1, trough test) and classified according to criteria given

there and in 39.5.

39.5 Classification criteria

39.5.1 Ammonium nitrate based fertilizers shall be classified in accordance with

the flowchart below.

68

Figure 39.5.1 Flowchart for the classification of ammonium nitrate based

fertilizers

B C D E F G H I J

2Fertilizer under

consideration

3

4Does it contain

≥90% ammonium

nitrate?

YES

Does it contain any

incompatible materials in

amounts that could potentially

negatively affect the stability

of AN? (See 39.3.6)

YES

Not accepted for transport

under UN2067. (See

39.4.3)

5 NO NO

6

Does it contain >0,2%

combustible substances,

including any organic

substance calculated as

carbon? (See 39.3.5)

YES

Only accepted for

transport in Class 1 (See

39.4.4)

7 NO

8Does it contain >5%

ammonium sulphate? (See

39.4.6)

YES


under UN2067. (See

39.4.3)

9 NO

10Accepted for transport under

UN2067. (See 39.4.2 and

39.4.5)

B C D E F G H I J

12

Is it a compound

fertilizer containing

ammonium nitrate?

(See 39.3.2)

YESDoes it contain >70%

ammonium nitrate?YES






YES

Not accepted for

transport under UN2067.

(See 39.4.3)

13 NO NO NO



39.4.6)

YES

Does it contain ≥10%

inorganic materials

providing the P and/or K?

YES

Accepted for transport

under UN2067. (See

39.4.2 and 39.4.5)

15 NO NO

16Accepted for transport

under UN2067. (See

39.4.2 and 39.4.5)

Not accepted for


(See 39.4.3)

17

18Does it contain ≥45%

ammonium nitrate?YES






YES

Not accepted for


(See 39.4.3)

19 NO NO

20Is it to be transported by

air or sea?YES

Is it capable of self-

sustaining

decomposition? (See

39.4.7)

YES


under UN2071 (See

39.4.7)

21 NO NO

22Not subject to these

regulations

Does it contain an excess

of nitrate >10%

calculated as potassium

nitrate?

YESAccepted for transport

under UN2071

23 NO

24 Continues on next pageNot subject to these

regulations

69

Annex 3

Correspondence between the proposed flow chart and the existing

criteria for UN 2067 and UN 2071

(For editorial reasons, this annex is reproduced as informal document INF.5)

(English only)

B C D E F G H I J

Continued from previous page

34Does it contain

>70% ammonium

nitrate?

YES






YES


under UN2067. (See

39.4.3)

35 NO NO



39.4.6)

YES


under UN2067. (See

39.4.3)

37 NO

38

Does it contain ≥20% calcium

carbonate and/or dolomite

and/or mineral calcium

sulfate?

YESNot subject to these

regulations

39 NO

40Accepted for transport under

UN2067. (See 39.4.2 and

39.4.5)

42Does it contain

>45% ammonium

nitrate?

YES






YES


under UN2067. (See

39.4.3)

43 NO NO

44

Does it contain ammonium

sulfate and is the sum of

ammonium nitrate and

ammonium sulfate >70%?

YES


under UN2067. (See

39.4.2 and 39.4.5)

45 NO

46Not subject to these

regulations

70

参考資料 No.13





Forty-ninth session


Item 2 (i) of the provisional agenda Explosives and related matters: miscellaneous

Amendments to the provisions applicable to transport of

Class 1 articles packed in limited quantities

Transmitted by the Sporting Arms & Ammunition

Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI)12

Introduction

1. When Limited Quantities (LQ) of 1.4S were introduced they were

differentiated from other Division 1.4 Compatibility Group S entries by two

methods. Test Series 6(d) was applied and also the LQ exceptions were modified to

retain specification packaging requirements for these entries.

2. Experience has been gained in the global shipment of limited quantities of

1.4S, and SAAMI proposes to eliminate the specification packaging requirements,

which are impeding implementation. In light of the 6(d) test and the robust nature of

articles, these requirements are superficial.

3. Considerable testing in Test Series 6(d) has been done with cartridges, and

patterns in the results have become apparent. It may be possible to establish



ST/SG/AC.10/42, para. 15).



71

alternate requirements to apply in lieu of the test for packaging configurations

adhering to certain requirements.

Discussion

4. Exceptions similar to the LQ system have been applicable to UN 0012 and

0014 since 1985 in the United States of America, under a system known as ORM-D.

Combination packagings with strong outer packagings are required, but Test Series

6(d) and specification package testing are not required. Around 200 billion

cartridges have been transported under this system with no injury, fire or explosion.

The remaining 1.4S LQ entry in the UN Model Regulations, UN 0055, is not

regulated as dangerous goods in the United States of America.

5. The United States of America has some additional requirements and

exceptions for cartridges shipping as LQ:

(a) Calibers are limited to 12.7 mm bullet diameter and below;

(b) Except for those cartridges listed in (d) below, the primers of

cartridges must be protected against contact by other cartridges, i.e. the bullet of one

cartridge may not touch the primer of another cartridge without a layer of

intervening packaging;

(c) The normal exception for LQ to ship in trays without an outer

package is not allowed;

(d) Cartridges for tools, blank, Cartridges, power devices which are

used to project fastening devices, Cases, cartridge, empty with primer, and 22

caliber rim-fire cartridges may be packaged loose in strong outside packagings, i.e.

with no inner packaging(s).

6. SAAMI proposes to align UN LQ requirements with the United States of

America system. There are three decades of experience at high volumes, and safety

would be improved by harmonizing the two existing systems. The three limitations

above would be added for cartridges transported under LQ provisions. Specification

packaging requirements would be removed in favour of normal LQ packaging

requirements, with the exception of the prohibition of shipping in trays. This is

because the protection ensured by the Test Series 6(d) is achieved using a strong

outer packaging.

7. Special Provision 364 was drafted so that the package must only be capable

of the passing Test Series 6(d), and not be required, except at the discretion of a

competent authority. However, industry has found that carriers may require written

government certification on a per shipment basis. This effectively implements the

test for all packages, and unnecessarily impedes commerce.

8. Experience in conducting Test Series 6(d) has shown that results can be

predicted based on the type of cartridge and packaging configuration. Test results

will be supplied in an informal proposal which support the following conclusions.:

• Shot shell cartridges, cartridges for tools, blank, and empty cartridge cases

with primers do not cause hazardous effects outside the package.

• Smaller pistol cartridges will pass the test in industry standard configurations.

The projectiles of larger cartridges no not cause hazardous effects outside the

package, but pressures may rupture packages and allow unignited cartridges

to leave the package. This requires interpretation of the term “hazardous

effect”. It is known that Test Series 6(d) criteria are currently written to

control all effects outside the package, but could be re-aligned with original

intent and the definition of 1.4S to control only hazardous effects outside the

packaging, and not non-hazardous effects.

72

• The above statements for pistol cartridges are true for rifle cartridges, with

one additional provision. Rifle cartridges should be configured so that when

bullets are present (i.e. UN 0012, not UN 0014) they will point inward

towards other cartridges. This mitigates the possibility of projectiles.

9. Therefore an equivalent level of safety to Test Series 6(d) would be achieved

for all cartridges by a rationalized approach to orient centerfire rifle and pistol

cartridges so that projectiles point inward. This could be implemented by a new

special provision.

10. Special Provision 364 could be retained for packages which do not comply

with the requirement above but which pass Test Series 6(d) by alternate means, for

example packing in a wooden or metal outer packaging. It is also logical to maintain

Special Provision 364 in anticipation of future designations as LQ of other 1.4S

products not related to ammunition. For these reasons a new special provision is

proposed, rather than a revision to Special Provision 364.

Proposal 1

11. Modify Section 3.4.2 of the Model Regulations as follows. Section 3.4.3 is

also replicated to show the limitations for Division 1.4, Compatibility Group S that

would remain:

3.4.2 Dangerous goods shall be packed only in inner packagings placed

in suitable outer packagings. Intermediate packagings may be used. In

addition, for articles of Division 1.4, Compatibility Group S, the provisions

of section 4.1.5 shall be fully complied with. The use of inner packagings is

not necessary for the transport of articles such as aerosols or “receptacles,

small, containing gas”. The total gross mass of the package shall not exceed

30 kg.

3.4.3 Except for articles of Division 1.4, Compatibility Group S, shrink-

wrapped or stretch-wrapped trays meeting the conditions of 4.1.1.1, 4.1.1.2

and 4.1.1.4 to 4.1.1.8 are acceptable as outer packagings for articles or inner

packagings containing dangerous goods transported in accordance with this

Chapter. Inner packagings that are liable to break or be easily punctured,

such as those made of glass, porcelain, stoneware or certain plastics, shall be

placed in suitable intermediate packagings meeting the provisions of 4.1.1.1,

4.1.1.2 and 4.1.1.4 to 4.1.1.8, and be so designed that they meet the

construction requirements of 6.1.4. The total gross mass of the package shall

not exceed 20 kg.

Proposal 2

12. Add a new special provision SP ***, to read as follows:

“Configurations meeting the following provisions need not be subjected to

Test Series 6(d) and may be transported in accordance with Chapter 3.4:

(a) Size is limited to 8 gauge for shotshells, or 12.7 mm

projectile/neck diameter for all other cartridges;

(b) Centerfire rifle and pistol cartridges with inert projectiles must be

oriented so that no projectile is adjacent to the outer package or directly contacts the

primer of another cartridge; and

(c) Cartridges for tools, blank; cases, cartridge, empty with primer;

and rim-fire cartridges with projectiles not exceeding 6 mm diameter may be

packaged un-oriented without inner packagings.

13. Apply this special provision in the Chapter 3.2 Dangerous Goods List of the

UN Model Regulations to UN numbers 0012, 0014 and 0055.

73

参考資料 No.14




Clarification of the classification criteria for desensitised

explosives in GHS

Transmitted by the Australian Explosives Industry and Safety

Group (AEISG) and the Sporting Arms & Ammunition

Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI) 13

Note by AEISG and SAAMI: Although this proposal is mainly

intended for the GHS Sub-Committee, it is suggested that it should

first be reviewed by the Working Group on Explosives of the TDG

Sub-Committee.

13 In accordance with the programme of work of the subcommittees for 2015–2016 approved

by the Committee at its seventh session (see ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/92, paragraph 95,

ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/60, annex III and ST/SG/AC.10/42, para. 15).

United Nations ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/30- ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2016/6



of Dangerous Goods


Harmonized System of Classification and

Labelling of Chemicals




Issues relating to the Globally Harmonized

System of

Classification and Labelling of Chemicals:

miscellaneous


Item 3 (f) of the provisional agenda

Classification criteria and related hazard

communication: miscellaneous

74

Introduction

1. A new Chapter 2.17 covering Desensitised Explosives was added in the sixth

revised edition of the GHS.

2. Section 2.17.2 of the GHS currently states:

2.17.2 Classification criteria

2.17.2.1 Any explosive which is desensitized shall be

considered in this class, unless:

(a) It is manufactured with the view to

producing a practical, explosive or pyrotechnic

effect; or

(b) It has a mass explosion hazard according to

test series 6 (a) or 6 (b) or their corrected burning

rate according to the burning rate test described in

part V, subsection 51.4 of the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Manual of Tests and Criteria is greater than

1200kg/min; or

(c) Their exothermic decomposition energy is less than

300J/g.

NOTE 1: Substances or mixtures which meet the criterion (a) or (b) shall be classified as explosives, see chapter 2.1. Substances or mixtures which meet the criterion (c) may fall within the scope of other physical hazard classes.

NOTE 2: The exothermic decomposition energy may be estimated using a suitable calorimetric technique (see section 20, sub-section 20.3.3.3 in Part II of the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Manual of Tests and Criteria).

Discussion

3. Varying interpretations of this paragraph have been experienced by industry,

with some regulatory authorities believing that the criteria (a), (b) and (c) above

refer to the explosive in its non-desensitised state. For example, paragraph (a) has

been interpreted that wet TNT (UN 1356) that meets the test criteria must

nevertheless be classified as an explosive because the intent is to later remove the

desensitiser and use the material as an explosive. The same potential for

misinterpretation also applies to paragraphs (b) and (c).

4. Last December the Working Group on Explosives of the TDG Sub-

Committee met in formal and informal sessions to discuss the review of GHS

Chapter 2.1 (refer Report of the Working Group on Explosives, informal document

INF.53 (TDG Sub-Committee, 48th session)). The issue of interpreting section

2.17.2.1 was raised by AEISG during the informal session of the Working Group on

Explosives. The members of that group were of the opinion that the criteria in (a),

75

(b) and (c) only apply to the explosive in its desensitized state and that the

interpretation discussed above was not valid. However, there was no objection to

further clarifying this section to ensure consistency of application.

5. AEISG believes this section of Chapter 2.17 of GHS should be amended, and

makes the following proposal. Also, a few typographical errors were noted, where

“their” should be “the”, and these have been corrected in the proposed text.

Proposal

6. It is proposed to amend 2.17.2.1 of the GHS as follows:



considered in this class, regardless of whether it

may be later re-sensitized and re-classified for

explosive use, unless any of the following are true in

its desensitised state:

(a) It is manufactured with the view to producing

a practical, explosive or pyrotechnic effect; or


test series 6 (a) or 6 (b) or their the corrected

burning rate according to the burning rate test

described in part V, subsection 51.4 of the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Manual of Tests and Criteria is

greater than 1200kg/min; or

(c) Their The exothermic decomposition energy is

less than 300J/g.

NOTE 1: Substances or mixtures which meet the criterion (a) or (b) shall be classified as explosives, see chapter 2.1. Substances or mixtures which meet the criterion (c) may fall within the scope of other physical hazard classes.


76

参考資料 No.15

Globally harmonized standard for explosives security markings

Transmitted by the Institute of Makers of Explosives

Introduction

1. The Institute of Makers of Explosives provides this informal document as an

update to the Sub-Committee on the progress of the work to develop a globally

harmonized standard for explosives security markings.

Background

2. At the forty-third session, IME brought to the attention of this Sub-

Committee a need for a globally harmonized format for explosives security

markings. IME observed that:

• Countries including the USA, China, Brazil, Russia, and those within the

European Union have implemented (and others are considering

implementing) product traceability requirements utilizing varying marking

formats.

• Without a globally harmonized format we will have multiple formats which

will make the task of identification by relevant authorities considerably more

difficult.

• Products for illicit use are transferred across country borders.

• The varied formats can become confusing to law enforcement and anti-

terrorism bodies, defeats the intent of traceability, and delays criminal and

terrorist investigations.

• The varied formats place a difficult burden on industry to ensure that the

markings applied to their products are compliant with the requirements of the

destination country. In some instances, markings have to be replaced with

new markings as destinations change.

UN/SCETDG/49/INF.35




Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods 16 June 2016

Forty-ninth session


Item 2 (e) of the provisional agenda

Explosives and related matters: globally Harmonized standard for explosives security

markings

77

• This could all be solved with a globally harmonized format for the explosives

security markings.

• All explosives must, at some point in their life cycle, be transported;

therefore, a logical home for a marking harmonization recommendation is

this Sub-committee and its Recommendations (Model Regulations).

Experts have acknowledged the need for a globally harmonized format and have

encouraged IME to work on a solution for consideration by the Sub-committee,

which primarily focuses on safety in transportation, and preferably to be included in

Chapter 1.4, Security Provisions, of the Model Recommendations.

3. At the 44th Session, IME presented a proposal describing a globally

harmonized format for explosives security markings. This format was based upon

that used within the European Union (as mandated in Directive 2008/43/EC) as it

was the format currently in use by the largest bloc of countries.

Discussion

4. IME’s sole intent has always been to add a recommendation for global

harmonization of the format used for explosives security markings in an appropriate

place within the Model Regulations. It was never IME’s intention to establish a

“track-and-trace” requirement within the Model Regulations. Further, IME never

intended to get into implementation issues such as the requirement to mark, what to

mark and what not to mark, and so forth. Due to very specific needs of

implementing nations, IME has taken the position that this aspect of security

marking should be left to the responsible authorities and that this Sub-committee

should only recommend that the format of explosives security markings be globally

harmonized.

5. At the 47th Session, some experts suggested that there might be a way to

include the proposal by note or some other form that might be acceptable. Since

IME is seeking only a recommendation of this Sub-committee, it agrees that a note

may be the best course of action.

6. The Sub-committee is invited to consider the following issues:

(a) Would inclusion of a note in the Model Regulations stating this

Sub-Committee’s recommendation that, when used, the format for explosives

security markings should follow a single, globally harmonized format.

IME is of the opinion that since all explosives must be transported, inclusion

of a note providing such a recommendation is appropriate.

(b) Is the format used within the European Union, and proposed by

IME (see Figure 1 on the following page), the appropriate format?

IME notes that there are various formats already in use; however, the format

used with the EU is used by more individual countries and has been accepted

for use in other countries such as the USA and Brazil. Therefore, IME is of

the opinion that this format is the most appropriate upon which to base a

globally harmonized format.

78

Figure 1 Proposed Globally Harmonized Format

for Explosives Security Markings

(c) Should the 2-digit country code be the “Country of Production” (as

indicated in Figure 1) or some other designation?

Recognizing that, where a country code is used in explosives security

markings, it most often refers to the country of production (or manufacture),

IME supports this type of designation. In some instances, for example within

the European Union, the code may refer either to the country of production

within the EU or the country of first import into the EU; therefore, there may

need to be some flexibility in what this code means. Primarily, it, along with

the 3-digit manufacturing site code, is used to direct law enforcement

officials to the correct initial contact point when beginning a trace of

explosives for investigative purposes.

(d) Who should assign the 5-digit country/manufacturing site code?

As suggested to IME by the United Kingdom during the 47th Session,

we believe that this should be “a relevant authorizing agency”. Some

examples are:

• United States of America – Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,

and Explosives (ATF) of the U.S. Department of Justice

• United Kingdom – Export Licensing, Explosives Inspectorate,

Health Safety Executive (HSE)

• Canada – Explosives Regulatory Division (ERD) of Natural

Resources Canada

• Brazil – Office of Controlled Products, Brazilian Army, Ministry

of Defense

Conclusion

7. When IME first introduced this issue to the Sub-committee, it was only

seeking to obtain a recommendation by the Sub-committee that, if security markings

are required, those who require said markings adopt a globally harmonized format

for the marking. Input from the past few sessions have made the issue more

complex and less within the scope of the Sub-committee and its Model Regulations;

79

therefore, IME believes that the best course of action is to return to the original

concept: a note recommending that a globally harmonized format be used.

8. Submitted below, for the consideration and comment of the Sub-committee,

is a draft proposal that IME believes best accomplishes this goal. Should it appear

that the Sub-committee is supportive of such a proposal, IME will return at the 50th

Session with a formal proposal for final consideration by the Sub-committee.

Proposal

9. Insert the following note immediately after paragraph 1.4.3.2.1 of the Model

Regulations:

Note: In addition to the security provisions of these Regulations, competent

authorities may implement further security provisions for reasons other than

safety of dangerous goods during transport. These provisions should be

framed so as to not impede international and multimodal transport by

different explosives security markings. It is recommended that, when

explosives security markings are required, they be formatted as shown in

Figure 1.4.1.

Figure 1.4.1 Recommended Format

for Explosives Security Markings

80

参考資料 No.16

Globally harmonized standard for explosives security markings –

Comment to UN/SCETDG/49/INF.35

Transmitted by the experts from the United States of America

and the United Kingdom

Background

10. Various countries throughout the world, including those within the European

Union and North America, have implemented explosive marking requirements

containing unique security related identification information. These unique

identification markings may be present on explosives and packages containing

explosives in the transportation stream, and those involved in transportation (e.g.

offerors and carriers) will see these markings. For these reasons it is important the

Model Regulations provide recognition of the potential presence of these marking

and encourage an internationally consistent format to facilitate international and

multimodal transport.

Proposal

11. Insert the following note immediately after paragraph 1.4.3.2.1 of the Model

Regulations:

Note: In addition to the security provisions of these Regulations, competent

authorities may implement further security provisions for reasons other than safety

of dangerous goods during transport. In order to not impede international and

multimodal transport by different explosives security markings, it is recommended

that such markings be formatted consistent with an internationally harmonized

standard (e.g. European Union Commission Directive 2008/43/EC).

UN/SCETDG/49/INF.67 Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods



Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods 30 June 2016

Forty-ninth session


Item 2 (e) of the provisional agenda

Explosives and related matters: globally Harmonized standard for explosives security

markings

81

参考資料 No.17

第 50 回 TDG 小委員会報告平成 29 年 1 月 24 日



薄葉州

1. 開催期日： 2016 年 11 月 28 日～12 月 6 日

2. 開催場所：スイスジュネーブ国連ヨーロッパ本部

3. 議長： Mr. D. Pfund（米国）、

副議長： Mr. C. Phauvadel（仏国）

4. 参加国：アルゼンチン、オーストラリア、オーストリア、ベルギー、カナダ、

中国、フィンランド、仏国、ドイツ、イタリア、日本、ケニア、オラ

ンダ、ノルウェー、ポーランド、ポルトガル、韓国、ロシア、南アフ

リカ、スペイン、スェーデン、スイス、英国、米国

オブザーバー国：カタール、スロバキア

日本からの出席者：濱田 (NKKK)、薄葉 (AIST)、他

5. 多国間機関： European Union (EU)、 Intergovernmental Organization for International

Carriage by Rail (OTIF)

6. 国際機構： International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)、International Civil Aviation

Organization (ICAO)、International Maritime Organization (IMO)、World

Health Organization (WHO)


Association of European Manufacturers of Sporting Ammunition (AFEMS); Association of Hazmat

Shippers, Inc. (AHS); Australian Explosives Industry Safety Group (AEISG); Compressed Gas

Association (CGA); Cosmetics Europe; Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles

(COSTHA); Dangerous Goods Advisory Council (DGAC); Dangerous Goods Trainers Association

(DGTA); European Association for Advanced Rechargeable Batteries European Batteries (RECHARGE);

European Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA); Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC); European

Industrial Gases Association (EIGA); European Liquified Petroleum Gas Assocoation (AEGPL);

European Metal Packaging (EMPAC); European Aerosol Federation (FEA); Grain and Feed Trade

Association (GAFTA); Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME); International Air Transport Association

(IATA); International Association for Soaps, Detergents and Maintenance Products (AISE); International

Bulk Terminals Association (IBTA); International Confederations of Drum Manufacturers (ICDM);

International Confederation of Plastics Packaging Manufacturers (ICPP); International Council of

Chemical Associations (ICCA); International Confederation of Intermediate Bulk Container Associations

(ICIBCA); International Dangerous Goods and Containers Association (IDGCA); International Fibre

Drum Institute (IFDI); International Fishmeal and Fish Oil Association(IFFO); International Organization

for Standardization (ISO); International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufactures (OICA);

International Paint and Printing Ink Council (IPPIC); International Petroleum Industry Environmental

Conservation Assocoation (IPIECA); International Vessel Operators Dangerous Goods Assocoation

(IVODGA); KiloFarad International (KFI); Portable Rechargeable Battery Association (PRBA);

Responsible Packaging Management Association of Southern Africa (RPMASA); Sporting Arms and

Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) and Stainless Steel Container Assocoation (SSCA).


Australian Explosives Industry Safety Group (AEISG),

Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME),

Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI)

82

火薬類専門部会（火薬 WG）参加者 2016 年 11 月 28 日～12 月 2 日

氏名所属 Email address

Ryan Brogden Australia

Arnaud Vandenbroucke Belgium

Patrick Juneau Canada

Mikko Ojala Finland

Lionel Aufauvre France

Christian Michot France

Katrin Knaebel Germany

Alexander von Oertzen Germany

Alfonso Simoni Italy

Shu Usuba Japan

Ed de Jong Netherlands

Soedesh Mahesh Netherlands

Erik Miggelbrink Netherlands

Joanna Szczygielska Poland

Ramon Gonzalez Spain

Jose R. Quintana Spain

Shulin Nie Sweden

Lorens Van Dam Sweden

Evan Bale UK

Philip Smith UK

Curtis Gilbert USA

Brent Knoblett USA

Mike O'Lena USA

Brian Vos USA

Rosa Garcia Couto UN/ECE/GHS

Randy Biddle AEISG

Ken Price AEISG

Bob Sheridan AEISG

Angel Maria Zubero AFEMS

Dieter Heitkamp CEFIC

Werner Lange CEFIC

Peter Schuurman CEFIC

Klaus Pilatus CLEPA

Dave Madsen COSTHA

Kishore Shah Fertilizers Europe

Timothy Golian IME

Ben Barrett SAAMI

Robert Ford SAAMI

Brian Osowiecki SAAMI

83

8. 会議議事録

8-1 議案の承認

省略

8-2 火薬関係

8-2-1 第 47, 48 及び 49 回に採択された改定案の統合リスト

関係書類： ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/55 (事務局)

議題概要

第 47、48 及び 49 回危険物輸送専門家小委員会にて合意された試験方法及び判定基準マニュア

ル［MTC］第 6 改訂版（PartⅠ）及び国連勧告モデル規則第 19 改訂版［MR］（PartⅡ）の改正案

を取りまとめたものである。

火薬 WG において、日本は US 試験法の記述の中の”lifting charge, is”を“propellant charge,

are”に修正すべきことが指摘された。その結果下記の修正が行われ、カギ括弧を外すことが合

意された。

議論及び結果

今回の統合リストの該当テキストを確認したところ、理由は不明であるが HSL 試験法の実施

例の表の”Minimum”が“Mean”に変更されており、また前回修正が決定された”propellant

charge, are”の部分が、未修正の “lifting charge, is”のままであったため、全体会議の場、および

火薬 WG 議長を通じて再度修正を依頼した。

8-2-2 モデル規則第 2.1 章のクラス１の定義、及び GHS 第 2.1 章の火薬類のクラスの定義におけ

るカンマの除去

関係書類： ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/53 - ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2016/14 - (AEISG)

議題概要

モデル規則の記載されているクラス 1 の定義” Class 1 comprises: (c)Substances and articles not

mentioned under (a) and (b) which are manufactured with a view to producing a practical, explosive or

pyrotechnic effect.”『クラス 1 とは、次のものをいう。(c) (a)［爆発性物質］及び(b)［爆発性物

品］以外の物質及び物品であって、実用、爆発又は花火の効果を生じさせる目的で製造されるも

の』（MR19 改訂版化学工業日報社英文和訳）の practical の後につくカンマは不要であり、これ

は以前の版から引き継いでいる間違いと思われる。同様に GHS の 2.1.1.2 にも不要なカンマが残

っている。そこでこれらのカンマを削除すべきとの提案である。

議論及び結果

削除することが合意された。その結果、下記のように practical の後のカンマを削除した記述と

なった。

モデル規則 2.1.1.1(c)節の修正箇所

Substances and articles not mentioned under (a) and (b) which are manufactured with a view to producing a

practical explosive or pyrotechnic effect.

GHS 2.1.1.2(c)節の修正箇所

Substances, mixtures and articles not mentioned under (a) and (b) above which are manufactured with the

view to producing a practical explosive or pyrotechnic effect.

Source: ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/53, Para. 8 and Para. 5 of this report.

84

GHS Table 2.1.1 の脚注ｂの修正箇所 b This comprises substances, mixtures and articles which are manufactured with a view to producing a

practical explosive or pyrotechnic effect.

8-2-3 試験及び判定基準マニュアル 10.3.3 節の改正提案

関係書類： ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/60 - (Sweden, AEISG)

議題概要

試験及び判定基準マニュアル 10.3.3 節「試験方法の適用」の現行の記述には、試験シリーズ 3

および 4 の適用方法に関し、それらにパスしなかった物質又は物品が取うるオプションについて

不明確である。そこで一部修正の上パラグラフの順番を入れ替えるという提案である。

議論及び結果

10.3.3 節を改良する必要があることが合意された。また国によっては、ある物質のシリーズ 3

試験結果の情報や、それを収納した物品についての情報がある場合、試験シリーズ 4 を省略する

措置をとっているケースも紹介された。すべての賛同かえられたわけではないが、10.3.3.3 節

に、各国の所管官庁にとって相互利益になるような注釈を加えることが提案された。

これらの議論をもとに、10.3.3.2, 10.3.3.3 及び 10.3.3.4 節に関する本提案をさらに修正したうえ

で合意された。その結果、付録１に示すように修正されることが決まり、スェーデンと米国が次

期 2 年間でさらに改定案を検討することになった。See Amendment 5 of Annex 3 of this report.

8-2-4 ケーネン試験におけるジブチルフタレート（DBP）置き換えの提案

関係書類： ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/13 (フランス)

議題概要

ケーネン試験の加熱速度を校正するために使用される DBP は、EU 内では REACH 規則で一般

使用が禁止されている。そこでフランスでは DBP の代替物質の研究を行っており、シリコンオ

イルが暫定的に使用されている。しかしメーカーによって性質が異なる恐れがあるので、フラン

スを幹事国として有志国間でラウンドロビン試験を行い、問題点の有無を確認することになって

きた。使用するシリコンオイルは、BLUESIL FLD 47V100 が指定された。

議論及び結果

火薬 WG はフランスが提案したシリコンオイルに合意した。結果として試験マニュアルの

11.5.1.2.2、 12.5.1.2.2、 18.6.1.2.2 及び 24.4.1.2.2 節の試験記述「キャリブレーションは（1.5mm

のオリフィス板付の）鋼管に 27cm3のフタル酸ジブチルを詰めて加熱を行う。」のところを「キ

ャリブレーションは（1.5mmのオリフィス板付の）鋼管に 27cm3のシリコンオイル、見掛け密度

0.96 ± 0.02（20℃）及び熱容量 1.46 ± 0.02 J/g.K（25℃）を詰めて加熱を行う。」に変更すること

が決まった。

8-2-5 更なる試験のためのエネルギー物質の輸送

関係書類： ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/61 （CEFIC）

UN/SCETDG/50/INF.23 （CEFIC）

議題概要

研究開発においては、しばしば危険性が不明なエネルギー物質の試料を輸送する必要がある。

85

これらの物質はクラス 1 の爆薬として設計されていないが、クラス 1 の候補になる基を分子に有

し爆発特性や自己反応性を示す場合ある。しかし情報が足りないので適切な分類ができない。こ

れらの物質の輸送を円滑に行うため CEFIC は検討の第一歩として、第、これらのエネルギー物

質を区分 4.1 とし特別容器で輸送する提案を 47 回 TDG に INF.29 で行った。TDG で前向きな反応

が得られたので、ドイツ BAM で容器の試験を行い、その妥当性を示す証拠を第 49 回 TDG の

INF.20 で報告した。これらを背景に今回、以下の様な正式提案を行った。

モデル規則に「2.0.4.3 Samples of energetic materials」を新設する。

危険物リストの UN3223（自己反応性液体 4.1）と UN3224（自己反応性固体 4.1）の第 9

欄に PP94 及び PP95 を加える。

包装要件 P520 において、新特別包装規程 PP94 と PP95 を追加する。

議論及び結果

2.0.4.3 に、対象物質を試験目的の試料のみに限ることを明記する旨を記述する条件で提案が採

択された。その結果、付録２に示す変更が決まった。

8-2-6 硝酸アンモニウム系肥料の分類の明確化－試験及び判定基準マニュアルにおける新 39 節

の提案

関係書類： ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/66（スウェーデン）

UN/SCETDG/50/INF.9（AEISG）

UN/SCETDG/50/INF.47（IME）

議題概要

硝酸アンモニウム系肥料の危険性は UN2067（5.1）、UN2071（9）あるいは UN0222（1.1D）に

分類されるが、これらの分類手順は特別規定 SP186、193、306、307 及び 370 と、国連試験 S.1

「硝酸塩を含む肥料の持続発熱分解に関する判定のための雨どい試験」に規定されている。しか

しこれらの規定は複雑かつ難解な記述になっており、暗黙の了解の存在のためか、論理的な矛盾

を抱えている。そこでスウェーデン、オランダ、英国、フランス及びドイツの非公式 WG が解決

策を協議してきた。これらの議論を基に前回の TDG でのスウェーデン提案が議論され、今回、

以下のような正式提案がスエーデンから出された。。

１．分類手順をよりわかりやすくするため、フローチャートを作成して試験マニュアルⅢ部に新

設する 39 節に掲載する。

２．これに伴い危険物リスト UN2067（硝酸アンモニウム系肥料、5.1）及び UN2071（硝酸アン

モニウム系肥料、9）の第 6 列の特別規定を修正する。

議論と結果

スウェーデンの提案の詳細内容について議論され、提案内容は一部修正の上採択された。その

結果、付録３に示すようにモデル規則及び試験マニュアルの修正が決まった。

8-2-7 GHS 2.1 章の見直し → GHS 報告書参照

8-2-8 GHS の状況を考慮した試験及び判定基準マニュアルの使用

関係書類：（修正箇所のみ）

ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/83- ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2016/16（GHS）

（火薬専門部会議長）

以下 INF.7+Add1-5 は修正された場合のフルテキスト

INF.7 (TDG) – INF.5 (GHS): Section 1

INF.7/Add.1 (TDG) – INF.5/Add.1 (GHS): Part I (Section 10 to 17)

86

INF.7/Add.2 (TDG) – INF.5/Add.2 (GHS): Part I (Section 18)

INF.7/Add.3 (TDG) – INF.5/Add.3 (GHS): Part II (Section 20 to 28)

INF.7/Add.4 (TDG) – INF.5/Add.4 (GHS): Parts III, IV and V (Section 30 to 51)

INF.7/Add.5 (TDG) – INF.5/Add.5 (GHS): Appendices

UN/SCETDG/50/INF.14 - UN/SCEGHS/32/INF.10 - (ドイツ)

UN/SCETDG/50/INF.17 - UN/SCEGHS/32/INF.14 – (米国/カナダ)

議題概要

試験及び判定基準のマニュアルを GHS からも利用することを想定した見直しが行われてき

た。今回、火薬 WG では INF.7 と INF.7/add.1-5 の内容を審議・確認した。

議論と結果

ドイツはセクション 1 の修正すべき箇所を INF 文書で提示した。しかし、米国及びカナダは、

GHS 内の議論が固まっておらず、また GHS 第 2.1 章「爆発物」の大幅な見直し作業が終了して

いない時点で、火薬 WG が試験マニュアルの修正提案の是非を判断することは時期尚早であると

の意見を INF文書にて表明した。

その結果、今回はクラス 1 に関連する Part I（Section 10 から 18）及び Appendices のみの修正

を審議し、それ以外の部分は次期 2 年度に検討することになった。

結局、提案文書 ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/83 に記載された修正箇所の中で該当箇所のみが採択さ

れ、その他の修正部分は削除（先送り）となった。これを付録４にまとめた。この付録４の内容

は試験マニュアル第 6 版への修正（Ammendments）に含まれることになる。

8-3 その他

次期 2 年度（2017-2018）の議長・副議長選挙結果

議長：Mr. D. Pfund (United States of America)

副議長：Mr. C. Pfauvadel (France)

以下省略

以上

87

付録１「試験及び判定基準マニュアル 10.3.3 節の改正提案」に関する修正

Section 10.3.3 – amend 10.3.3 as shown below:

“10.3.3.2 The acceptance procedure for substances designed to have an practical

explosive or pyrotechnic effect starts with the application of test series types 3 (a), 3 (b), 3

(c) and 3 (d) to determine if the substance is too sensitive for transport in the form in

which it is tested. If the substance passes all tests, the procedure for the assignment to the

appropriate division is applied. If the substance fails any of the tests, it is forbidden for

transport in the form tested. If it proves to be thermally unstable, i.e. it A substance which

fails test type 3 (c) it may be altered and resubmitted to test type 3(c). , it is not permitted

to be transported. If it A substance which fails test types 3 (a), 3 (b) or 3 (d) may be

encapsulated or packaged to reduce sensitiveness to external stimuli and submitted to test

type 4(b).it may either be encapsulated or otherwise desensitized or packaged to reduce

its sensitiveness to external stimuli. Examples are water-wetted primary explosives and

primary explosives which have been encapsulated in the form of detonators. The resulting

new articles should be submitted to test series 4, and liquids or packaged solids to a test of

type 4 (b), to determine whether or not their level of safety in transport is consistent with

the requirements of Class 1. Desensitized substances should be re-examined under test

series 3 to determine whether their level of safety in transport is consistent with the

requirements of Class 1. for the same purpose. If a substance designed to have an

explosive effect passes all tests in Test series 3 or an article designed to have an explosive

effect passes all tests in series 4, the procedure for assignment to the appropriate division

is applied.”

Renumber current paragraph 10.3.3.3 to 10.3.3.4.

Renumber current paragraph 10.3.3.4 to 10.3.3.3 and amend as follows:

“10.3.3.3 All articles as presented for transport (packaged or unpackaged) articles

containing substances which have failed test type 3 (a), 3 (b) or 3 (d) should be subjected

to test series 4. However, if there is sufficient information to indicate that the article

would not be too dangerous for transport, the competent authority may decide to waive all

or part of these tests for the article. If the article or packaged articles pass test type 4 (a),

test type 4 (b) is performed. Encapsulated and/or packaged substances containing

substances which have failed test types 3 (a), 3 (b) or 3 (d) are subjected to test type 4 (b)

only. If the product fails either test type 4 (a) or 4 (b), it should be rejected. However, the

product may be modified and re-tested. If the product passes all the required tests in Test

Seriestest series 4, the procedure for assignment to the appropriate division is applied. If

the product fails any of the required tests, it is forbidden for transport in the form tested,

but may be modified or repackaged and resubmitted to test series 4. If the competent

authority suspects that the product may be subject to stimuli other than those specified in

test series type 4 (a) and 4 (b) resulting in potentially dangerous effects, additional

information or tests may be required (see note under paragraph 2.1.3.3.1 of the Model

Regulations).”

88

付録２「更なる試験のためのエネルギー物質の輸送」に関する修正

Section 2.0.4 – amend 2.0.4 by adding 2.0.4.3 as shown below:

2.0.4.3 Samples of energetic materials for testing purposes

2.0.4.3.1Samples of organic substances carrying functional

groups listed in tables A6.1 and/or A6.3 in Annex 6 (Screening

Procedures) of the Manual of Tests and Criteria may be

transported under UN 3224 (solid self-reactive substances) or

UN 3223 (liquid self-reactive substances), as applicable, of

Division 4.1 provided that:

(a) The samples do not contain any

known explosives,

substances showing explosive effects in testing,

compounds designed with the view of producing a

practical explosive or pyrotechnic effect, or

components consisting of synthetic precursors of

intentional explosives;

(b) For mixtures, complexes or salts of inorganic oxidizing

substances of Division 5.1 with organic material(s), the

concentration of the inorganic oxidizing substance is:

- Less than 15%, by mass, if assigned to packing group I

(high hazard) or II (medium hazard); or

- Less than 30%, by mass, if assigned to packing group

III (low

hazard);

(c) Available data do not allow a more precise

classification;

(d) The sample is not packed together with other goods;

and

(e) The sample is packaged in accordance with special

packaging provision PP94 or PP95 in P520, as applicable.

Chapter 3.2, Dangerous Goods List – Add PP94 and PP95 in Column 9 (Special packing provisions) against

the following UN Nos.: 3223 and 3324 as shown below.

U

N

No

.

Name and

description

Cla

ss

or

div

i-

sio

n

Su

bsi-

dia

ry

ris

k

UN

pack

ing

grou

p

Spec

ial

prov

i-

sion

s

Limited

and

excepte

d

quantit

ies

Packagings

and IBCs

Portable

tanks and

bulk

containers

Packi

ng

instru

ct-

tion

Speci

al

packi

ng

provi

-

sions

Instr

uc-

tions

Specia

l

provis

ions

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7a

)

(7

b) (8) (9) (10) (11)

32

23

SELF-

REACTIVE

LIQUID TYPE C

4.1 274 25

ml

E

0 P520

PP21

PP94

PP95

32

24

SELF-

REACTIVE

SOLID TYPE C

4.1 274 100

g

E

0 P520

PP21

PP94

PP95

89

Chapter 4.14, Packing Instruction P520 – add a new special packing provision PP94 to packing instruction

P520 as shown below:

PP94 Very small amounts of energetic samples of section 2.0.4.3

may be carried under UN 3223 or 3224, as appropriate, provided

that:

1. Only combination packaging with outer packaging comprising

boxes (4A, 4B, 4N, 4C1, 4C2, 4D, 4F, 4G, 4H1 and 4H2) are used;

2. The samples are carried in microtiter plates or multi-titer

plates made of plastics, glass, porcelain or stoneware as inner

packaging;

3. The maximum amount per individual inner cavity does not

exceed 0.01 g for solids or 0.01 ml for liquids;

4. The maximum net quantity per outer packaging is 20 g for

solids or 20 ml for liquids, or in the case of mixed packaging the sum

of grams and millilitres shall not exceed 20; and

5. When dry ice or liquid nitrogen is optionally used as a coolant

for quality control measures, the requirements of 5.5.3 are complied

with. Interior supports shall be provided to secure the package secure

the secondary packaging in the original position. The primary

receptacle and the secondary packaging shall maintain their

integrity at the temperature of the refrigerant used as well as the

temperatures and the pressures which could result if refrigeration

were lost.

Chapter 4.14, Packing Instruction P520 – add a new special packing provision PP95 to packing instruction

P520 as shown below:

PP95 Small amounts of energetic samples of section 2.0.4.3

may be carried under UN 3223 or 3224, as applicable, provided that: 1. Outer packaging comprise only type 4G having minimum dimensions of 60

cm (l) by 40.5 cm (w) by 30 cm (h) and minimum wall thickness of 1.3 cm

consisting of corrugated fibreboard;

2. The individual substance is contained in an inner packaging of

glass or plastics of maximum capacity 30 ml placed in an expandable

polyethylene foam matrix of at least 130 mm thickness having a

density of 18 +/- 1 g/l;

3. Within the foam carrier, sample packaging receptacles are

segregated from each other by a minimum distance of 40 mm and

from the wall of the outer package by a minimum distance of 70 mm.

The package may contain up to two layers of such foam matrices,

each carrying up to 28 sample packaging bottles;

4. The maximum content of each inner packaging receptacle does

not exceed 1 g for solids or 1 ml for liquids;

5. The maximum net quantity per outer packaging is 56 g for

solids or 56 ml for liquids, or in the case of mixed packaging the sum

of grams and millilitres shall not exceed 56; and

6. When dry ice or liquid nitrogen is optionally used as a coolant

for quality control measures, the requirements of 5.5.3 are complied

with. Interior supports shall be provided to secure the inner

secondary packaging in the original position. The inner packaging

primary receptacle and the secondary packaging shall maintain their

integrity at the temperature of the refrigerant used as well as the

temperatures and the pressures which could result if refrigeration

were lost.

90

付録３「硝酸アンモニウム系肥料の分類の明確化－試験及び判定基準マニュアルに

おける新 39 節の提案」に関する修正結果

試験マニュアルへ下記の新規 39 節を追加する。ただしスェーデン原案は今回の審議

で修正されており、修正部分を下線及び打ち消し線で示した。

Section 39

Classification procedure and criteria relating to solid ammonium


39.1 Purpose



3.3, special provisions 307 and 193.

39.2 Scope

Any new solid fertilizer composition containing ammonium nitrate shall be

subjected to the classification procedure as set out in 39.4.

39.3 Definitions

39.3.1 An ammonium nitrate based fertilizer is a fertilizer uniform mixture

containing ammonium (NH4+) and nitrate (NO3−) ions. See also 39.3.3.

39.3.2 A compound fertilizer is a fertilizer uniform mixture that contains at least two

of the three primary nutrients nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K).

39.3.3 In determining the ammonium nitrate content, all nitrate ions for which a

molecular equivalent of ammonium ions is present in the fertilizer shall be


39.3.4 Combustible substances as referred to in paragraph 39.4 include also non-

organic inorganic substances that can be oxidized, e.g. elemental sulphur. For

organic substances the content of combustibles is calculated as carbon.

39.3.5 Materials that are may be incompatible with ammonium nitrate include e.g.

urea, acids, superphosphates with free acid, elemental sulphur, sulphides and most

transition metals, including heavy metals (e.g. copper), and chlorides. Note however

that this listing is not exhaustive.


39.4.1 Solid ammonium nitrate based fertilizers are classified on the basis of their

composition and experience and knowledge of their hazardous behaviour.

Occasionally, the classification is complemented by testing for the ability to undergo

self-sustaining decomposition or for explosive properties. These principles are

condensed in the flowchart in 39.5.

39.4.2 UN No. Number 2067 may only be used for ammonium nitrate based

fertilizers that do not show explosive properties when tested in accordance with Test

Series 2 of this Manual.

91


classification as UN No. Number 2067, can be assigned another suitable UN No.

Number in Class 1 or Class 5, Division 5.1, provided that the suitability for transport

is demonstrated and this is approved by the competent authority. This may for

instance be when contamination has occurred in e.g. an accident, so that the

fertilizer can be transported under a suitable UN No. Number e.g. in Class 1 as

approved by the competent authority.

39.4.4 Ammonium nitrate based fertilizers that meet composition limits relevant for

inclusion in the class of Explosives as set out in 39.5 shall be classified in that class

regardless of the results when tested in accordance with Test Series 2 of this

Manual.


classification as oxidizing solids as set out in 39.5, or are otherwise classified as

oxidizing solids, shall not be exempted from that classification on the basis of the

results from tests O.1 and/or O.3 in Section 34 of this Manual. See also paragraph

34.3.1 in Section 34 of this Manual.

39.4.6 Fertilizers that contain 70 % or more ammonium nitrate shall not

contain ammonium sulphate as nutrient, unless they are compound fertilizers with

less than 90% ammonium nitrate and with at least 10% inorganic materials

excluding ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulphate.

39.4.7 Compound fertilizers that meet the composition limits relevant for potential

inclusion for transport in Class 9 shall be tested for their capability to undergo self-

sustaining decomposition according to the method given in paragraph 38.2.4 of this

Manual (test S.1, trough test) and classified according to criteria given there and in

39.5.

39.4.8 For ammonium nitrate based fertilizers containing 90% or more ammonium

nitrate, any deliberately added matter shall be inorganic and inert towards

ammonium nitrate. See also 39.3.5.


39.5.1 Ammonium nitrate based fertilizers shall be classified in accordance with the

flowchart below.

NOTE to Figure 39.1: AN means ammonium nitrate. AS means ammonium

sulphate

92

Figure 39.1 (a)

B C D E F G H I J

2FERTILIZER FOR

CLASSIFICATION

3

4Does it contain

≥90% AN?YES

Does it contain any


amounts that could

potentially negatively

affect the stability of AN?

(See 39.3.5 and 39.4.8)

YES

Not within the

composition limits of

UN2067. (See 39.4.3)

5 NO NO

6Does it contain >0.2%

combustible substances?

(See 39.3.4)

YES

Not within the


UN2067. Classify as

explosive. (See

39.4.4)

7 NO

8Does it contain >5% AS?

(See 39.4.6)YES

Not within the


UN2067. (See 39.4.3

and 39.4.6)

9 NO

10Classify as UN2067. (See

39.4.2 and 39.4.5)

11

12

Is it a compound

fertilizer

containing AN?

(See 39.3.2)

YES Does it contain >70% AN? YES

Does it contain >0.4%

combustible

substances? (See

39.3.4)

YES

Not within the


UN2067 or UN2071.

(See 39.4.3)

13 NO NO NO


AS? (See 39.4.6)YES


inorganic materials

excluding AN and AS ?

YES

Classify as UN2067.

(See 39.4.2 and

39.4.5)

15 NO NO

16Classify as UN2067.

(See 39.4.2 and

39.4.5)

Not within the


UN2067 or UN2071.

(See 39.4.3)

17

18 Does it contain ≥45% AN? YES


combustible

substances? (See

39.3.4)

YES

Not within the


UN2067 or UN2071.

(See 39.4.3)

19 NO NO

20


sustaining

decomposition? (See

39.4.7)

YESClassify as UN2071

(See 39.4.7)

21 NO

22Go to

Figure 39.1 (b)Not classified.

93

Figure 39.1 (b)

B C D E F G H I JFrom

Figure 39.1 (a)

34Does it contain

>70% AN?YES



(See 39.3.4)

YES

Not within the


UN2067. (See 39.4.3)

35 NO NO


(See 39.4.6)YES

Not within the


UN2067. (See 39.4.3

and 39.4.6)

37 NO

38

Does it contain ≤80% AN

mixed with calcium

carbonate and/or

dolomite and/or mineral

calcium sulfate?

YES Not classified.

39 NO


39.4.2 and 39.4.5)

42Does it contain

>45% AN?YES



(See 39.3.4)

YES

Not within the


UN2067. (See 39.4.3)

43 NO NO

44 Does it contain >5% AS? YESIs the sum of AN and

AS >70%?YES

Classify as UN2067.

(See 39.4.2 and 39.4.5)

45 NO NO

46 Not classified. Not classified. Not classified.

sulphate

94

モデル規則と試験マニュアルに対して下記の修正を行う。ただしスウェーデンが提

案した修正の原案が更に修正されており、その部分は下線及び打ち消し線で示し

た。

モデル規制への修正

In Chapter 2.5






In Chapter 2.9




Solid ammonium nitrate based fertilizers shall be classified in accordance

with the procedure as set out in the Manual of Tests and Criteria, Part III,

Section 39.”


BASED FERTILISER”.

In Chapter 3.2


• For UN No. 2071, delete 186 from column (6) Special provisions.

In Chapter 3.3


• Change Special provision 193 to read:

"This entry may only be used for ammonium nitrate based compound

fertilizers. They shall be classified in accordance with the procedure as set

out in the Manual of Tests and Criteria, Part III, Section 39. Fertilizers

meeting the criteria for this UN No. are only subject to these Regulations

when transported by air or sea."


“This entry may only be used for ammonium nitrate based fertilizers. They

shall be classified in accordance with the procedure as set out in the Manual

of Tests and Criteria, Part III, Section 39.”

95

試験マニュアルの修正

In Section 34:








In Section 38:



• In paragraph 38.2.3.3, delete the words “and provided they do not contain an

excess nitrate greater than 10% by mass (calculated as potassium nitrate)“




96

危険物リストへの修正

UN

No.

Name

and

descript

ion

Class

or

divisio

n

Subsi-

diary

risk

UN

packi

ng

group

Special

provi-

sions

Limited and

excepted

quantities

Packagings and IBCs Portable tanks and

bulk containers

Packing

instruct

ion

Special

packing

provisions

Instruct

ions

Special

provisio

ns

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 7(a) 7(b) (8) (9) (10) (11)

2067 AMMO

NIUM

NITRA

TE

BASED

FERTI

LIZER

5.1 III 186

306（復

活）

307

5 kg E1 P002

IBC08

LP02

B3 T1

BK1

BK2

BK3

TP33

2071 AMMO

NIUM

NITRA

TE

BASED

FERTI

LIZER

9 III 186

193

5 kg E1 P002

IBC08

LP02

B3

(Note that SP306 is retained for UN1942 with no change of wording. For UN2067 it

is replaced by 39.4.2 in the new Section 39 with the same requirement.)

特別規定の修正

Special

Provision

現行修正後

186 In determining the ammonium nitrate

content, all nitrate ions for which a

molecular equivalent of ammonium ions

is present in the mixture shall be


Deleted

193 This entry may only be used for uniform

ammonium nitrate based fertilizer

mixtures of the nitrogen, phosphate or

potash type, containing not more than

70% ammonium nitrate and not more

than 0.4% total combustible/organic

material calculated as carbon or with

not more than 45% ammonium nitrate

and unrestricted combustible material.

Fertilizers within these composition

limits are only subject to these

Regulations when transported by air or

sea and are not subject to these

Regulations if shown by a Trough Test

(see Manual of Tests and Criteria, Part

III, sub-section 38.2) not to be liable to

self-sustaining decomposition.

This entry may only be used for

ammonium nitrate based compound

fertilizers. They shall be classified in

accordance with the procedure as set

out in the Manual of Tests and Criteria,

Part III, Section 39. Fertilizers meeting

the criteria for this UN No. Number are

only subject to these Regulations when

transported by air or sea.


mixtures containing ammonium nitrate

as the main ingredient within the

following composition limits:

(a) [...]

(b) [...]

(c) [...]

This entry may only be used for

ammonium nitrate based fertilizers.

They shall be classified in accordance

with the procedure as set out in the

Manual of Tests and Criteria, Part III,

Section 39.

97

付録４「GHS の状況を考慮した試験及び判定基準マニュアルの使用」に関する修正

結果（試験マニュアル第 6 版に対する修正）

提案文書 ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/83 で提案された修正箇所のうち今回修正が同意された

部分、及び修正が取り消された部分が下記に説明されている。

Sections 1 から 10 まで、及び Part IIと IIIの全ての修正を取り消す（ただし付録 1 の修

正以外）。結局修正内容は下記の通り。

Section 11 Amendments agreed with the following modifications:

11.4.1.2.1 Remove this amendment from the list of amendments and include it

in a corrigendum to the 6th revised edition.

11.5.1.3.1 Amend to read as follows:

“In footnote 1, replace “transport conditions” with “operating

conditions”


12.5.1.3.1 Amend to read as follows:

“In footnote 1, replace “transport conditions” with “operating

conditions”


13.1 Replace with the following:

“Amend to read as follows:

“This test series is used to answer the questions in boxes 10 and 11

of Figure 10.2 by determining the sensitiveness of the substance to

mechanical stimuli (impact and friction), to heat and to flame. The

question in box 10 is answered "no" if a "+" is obtained in test type

3(c) and the substance shall be categorised as an unstable explosive;

consequentially the substance is not permitted for transport. The

question in box 11 is answered "yes" if a "+" is obtained in any of the

test types 3(a), 3(b) or 3(d). If a "+" is obtained, the substance shall

be categorised as an unstable explosive in the form in which it was

tested but may be encapsulated or otherwise desensitized or

packaged to reduce its sensitiveness to external stimuli.

NOTE: Although explosives categorised as unstable explosives are forbidden for transport they are not prohibited in other sectors where special precautions may be applied.”

13.3.2 Amend to read as follows:

“Replace “wetting agent provided for transport” with “wetting agent

specified”.”


“Throughout the whole sub-section replace “too dangerous to

transport” and “too dangerous for transport” with “an unstable

explosive”.

(Applies to the following paragraphs: 13.4.1.1; 13.4.1.4.1; 13.4.1.4.2; 13.4.2.1; 13.4.2.4; 13.4.3.1; 13.4.3.4.1 (twice); 13.4.3.4.2 (twice); 13.4.4.1; 13.4.4.4; 13.4.5.1; 13.4.5.4.2; 13.4.5.4.3; 13.4.6.1; 13.4.6.4.1; 13.4.6.4.2; 13.4.7.1; 13.4.7.5.1 and 13.4.7.5.2)

98

13.4.2.3.1 (c) Replace with the following:

“Replace “are transported” with “are manufactured”.”

13.4.6.3.1.1 Replace with the following:

“At the end of the second sentence replace “wetting agent required

for transport” with “wetting agent specified”.

13.4.7.3.1 Replace with the following:

“At the end of the second sentence replace “wetting agent required

for transport” with “wetting agent specified”.


“Throughout the whole sub-section replace “too dangerous to

transport” and “too dangerous for transport” with “an unstable

explosive”.

(Applies to the following paragraphs: 13.5.1.1; 13.5.1.3.4; 13.5.2.1; 13.5.2.4 (twice); 13.5.3.1; 13.5.3.4; 13.5.4.1 and 13.5.4.5)


“At the end of the second sentence replace “wetting agent provided

for transport” with “wetting agent specified” and in sub-paragraph

(c) replace “are transported” with “are manufactured”.



specified”.”



specified”.”


“Amend the last sentence to read as follows: “If explosion or ignition

occurs then the substance is too thermally unstable for transport

and shall be categorized as an unstable explosive”.”

13.6.1.3.2 Remove this amendment from the list of amendments and include it

in a corrigendum to the 6th revised edition.

13.6.1.4.2 In the proposed amendment, replace “shall be classified” with “shall

be categorised”.

13.6.2.4.2 In the proposed amendment, replace “shall be classified” with “shall

be categorised”.

13.7.1.3 Replace with the following:

“In the last paragraph, replace “too dangerous for transport” with

“an unstable explosive”.

Section 14 Delete all the proposed amendments to this section.


15.4.1.3 In the amendment to the fourth last but one sentence, replace

“which can be subjected” with “which could be subjected”.

15.6.1.1 Replace with the following:

“Replace “packaged as for transport” with “as packaged for

transport”.”

15.6.1.3.1 Delete the proposed amendment.


16.3.1 Delete the amendment to the first sentence.

Replace the amendment to the second sentence with the following:

“In the second sentence replace “most disadvantageous” with “most

severe”.

(The amendment to the third sentence remains unchanged) 16.4.1.3.1 Delete the amendment to the first sentence.

99

16.5.1.3 Delete the amendment to the first sentence.

16.6.1.3.1 Delete the proposed amendment.

16.7.1.3.1 Replace the amendment with the following: “In the second sentence

replace “are to be carried” with “are classified”.”

Section 17 Delete all amendments except the one addressing paragraph

17.11.1.2.1.

Section 18 Amendments agreed without modifications.

Appendix 5 Amendments agreed with the following modification:

Section 2 At the end of the 7th sentence (“Usually, the bursting pressure...”) do

not delete the word “transport” but replace it by “operating” .

Appendix 6 Amendments agreed with the following modification:

2.2 In the amendment relating to the new sentence to be added at the

end, replace “during normal operation of transport, storage or use’

with “during normal operating conditions’’

100

参考資料 No.18





Fiftieth session

Geneva, 28 November-6 December 2016

Item 2 (a) of the provisional agenda

Recommendations made by the Sub-Committee

on its forty-seventh, forty-eighth

and forty-ninth sessions and pending issues:

review of draft amendments already

adopted during the biennium

Consolidated list of adopted texts

Note by the secretariat14

This document contains a consolidated list of texts adopted by the

Sub-Committee of Experts at its forty-seventh, forty-eighth and forty-

ninth sessions, as follows:

Appendix 7

Amend the title of the appendix to read as follows: “FLASH COMPOSITION

TESTS”. Insert a new subtitle to read: “1. HSL Flash Composition Test”. Renumber

existing paragraphs accordingly.



ST/SG/AC.10/42, para. 15).


Secretariat Distr.: General 16 September 2016 English Original: English and French

101

In 1.1 (former 1), after “fireworks, that are used” insert “in waterfalls, or”. In the

second sentence, replace “lifting” by “propellant”.

In 1.2.2 (former 2.2), replace “vessel is closed by an aluminium bursting” by “vessel

is closed by a brass or aluminium bursting”. In the last sentence, after “lead washer”

insert “or a washer of a suitable deformable material (for example,

polyoxymethylene)”.

In 1.4 (former 4), after “used in waterfalls,” insert “or to produce an aural effect,”.

Replace “lifting” by “propellant”. Amend the table to read as follows:

Composition (mass %) Use or effect

Mean time for a

pressure rise

from 690 to

2 070 kPa (ms)

Result

Potassium perchlorate/Aluminium (77/23) Aural (report) 0.48 Flash composition

Potassium perchlorate/ Barium nitrate/

Aluminium /Magnalium (20/20/45/15) Aural

(report) 2.15 Flash composition

Potassium perchlorate /Potassium benzoate

(71/29) Aural

(whistle) 0.89 Flash composition

Potassium perchlorate /Potassium hydrogen

terephthalate /Titanium (62/25/13) Aural

(whistle) 1.67 Flash composition

Potassium perchlorate /Aluminium

(P2000)/Aluminium (P50) (53/16/31) Waterfall 2.73 Flash composition

Potassium perchlorate /Aluminium

(P2000)/Aluminium (P50)/ Antimony

sulphide (50/15/30/5)

Waterfall 1.19 Flash composition

Potassium perchlorate/Charcoal (80/20) Bursting 0.85 Flash composition


Potassium perchlorate/Charcoal (50/50) Bursting 9.26 Not flash composition

Potassium perchlorate/ Potassium nitrate

/Charcoal (53/26/21) Bursting 1.09 Flash composition

Potassium perchlorate/ Potassium nitrate

/Charcoal (53/26/21) (Cottonseed core) Bursting 7.39 Not flash composition

Potassium perchlorate/Charcoal /Aluminium

(59/23/18) Bursting 1.14 Flash composition

Insert a new section 2 to read as follows:

“2. US Flash Composition Test

2.1 Introduction

This test may be used to determine if pyrotechnic substances in powder form

or as pyrotechnic units as presented in fireworks that are used in waterfalls, or to

produce an aural effect or used as a bursting charge or propellant charge, may be

considered a “flash composition” for the purposes of the default fireworks

classification table in 2.1.3.5.5 of the Model Regulations.

2.2 Apparatus and materials

The experimental set up consists of:

102

A cardboard or fibreboard sample tube with a minimum inside diameter of

25 mm and a maximum height of 154 mm with a maximum wall thickness of

3.8 mm, closed at the base with a thin cardboard or paperboard disk, plug or cap just

sufficient to retain the sample;

A 1.0 mm thick 160 × 160 mm witness plate consisting of steel conforming

to specification S235JR (EN10025) or ST37-2 (DIN17100) or SPCC (JIS G 3141)

or equivalent having a stretch limit (or rupture strength) of 185-355 N/mm2, an

ultimate tensile strength of 336 - 379 N/mm2 and a percentage elongation after

fracture of 26-46% ;

An electric igniter, e.g. a fuse head, with lead wires of at least 30 cm in

length;

A mild steel confinement sleeve (weighing approximately 3 kg) having an

outside diameter of 63 mm and a minimum length of 165 mm with a flat-bottomed

round bore whose interior dimensions for diameter and depth are 38 mm and

155 mm, respectively, and a notch or groove cut into one radius of the open end

sufficient to allow the igniter lead wires to pass through (the steel sleeve might be

provided with a rugged steel handle for easier handling);

A steel ring of approximately 50 mm height with an inner diameter of

95 mm; and

A solid metal base, e.g. a plate of approximately 25 mm in thickness and

150 mm square.

2.3 Procedure

2.3.1 Prior to testing, the pyrotechnic substance is stored for at least 24 hours in a

desiccator at a temperature of 20-30 °C. Twenty-five (25) g net mass of the

pyrotechnic substance to be tested as a loose powder or granulated or coated onto

any substrate, is pre-weighed and then poured carefully into a fibreboard sample

tube with the bottom end closed with a cardboard or paperboard disk, cap or plug.

After filling, the top cardboard or paperboard disk, cap or plug might be inserted

lightly to protect the sample from spillage during transport to the test stand. The

height of the sample substance in the tube will vary depending on its density. The

sample should be first consolidated by lightly tapping the tube on a non-sparking

surface. The final density of the pyrotechnic substance in the tube should be as close

as possible to the density achieved when contained in a fireworks device.

2.3.2 The witness plate is placed on the supporting ring. If present, the paperboard

or cardboard top disk, cap or plug of the fibreboard sample tube is removed and the

electric igniter is inserted into the top of the pyrotechnic substance to be tested and

visually positioned to an approximate depth of 10 mm. The paperboard or cardboard

top disk, cap or plug is then inserted or re-inserted, fixing the igniter's position in the

fibreboard sample tube and the depth of its match head. The lead wires are bent over

and down along the sidewall and bent away at the bottom. The sample tube is placed

vertically and centred on the witness plate. The steel sleeve is placed over the

fibreboard sample tube. The igniter lead wires are positioned to pass through the

slotted groove in the bottom edge of the steel confining sleeve and will be ready to

attach to the firing circuit apparatus. Finally, the alignment of the steel sleeve and

the witness plate is corrected so that their centres are aligned with the centre of the

steel ring. See Figure A7.10 as an example of the test set-up. The cardboard or

paperboard disk, cap or plug at the bottom end of the sample tube should be placed

103

properly to avoid air gap between the witness plate and the bottom end of the

substance to be tested.

2.3.3 The electric igniter is then initiated from a safe position. After initiation and a

suitable interval the witness plate is recovered and examined. The test should be

performed 3 times unless a positive result is obtained earlier.

2.4 Test criteria and method of assessing results

The result is considered positive “+” and the pyrotechnic substances in

powder form or as pyrotechnic units as presented in the fireworks, that are used in

waterfalls, or to produce an aural effect, or used as a bursting charge or lifting

charge, is to be considered as flash composition if:

(a) In any trial the witness plate is torn, perforated,

pierced or penetrated; or;

(b) The average of the maximum depths of indented witness plates

from all three trials exceeds 15 mm.

Examples of results

Composition (mass %) Use or effect

Observation of

witness plate or

averaged depth of

indentation (mm)

Result


(77/23) Aural (report) Pierced Flash composition

Potassium perchlorate/Barium

nitrate/Aluminium/Magnalium

(20/20/45/15)

Aural

(report) 11.3

Not flash

composition


benzoate

(71/29)

Aural

(whistle) Pierced Flash composition


hydrogen terephthalate /Titanium

(62/25/13)

Aural

(whistle) Pierced Flash composition


(P2000)/Aluminium (P50) (53/16/31) Waterfall Pierced Flash composition


(P2000)/Aluminium (P50)/Antimony

sulphide

(50/15/30/5)

Waterfall Pierced Flash composition

Potassium perchlorate/Charcoal (80/20) Bursting Pierced Flash composition


Potassium perchlorate/Charcoal (50/50) Bursting 6.7 Not flash

composition


nitrate /Charcoal (53/26/21) Bursting Torn Flash composition


nitrate /Charcoal (53/26/21)

(Cottonseed core) Bursting 12.7

Not flash

composition

Potassium

perchlorate/Charcoal/Aluminium

(59/23/18)

Bursting Pierced Flash composition

104

(K) Cardboard or fibreboard sample tube (L) Steel witness plate

(M) Electric igniter (N) Mild steel confinement sleeve

(O) Steel ring (P) Solid metal base

(Q) Substance to be tested (R) Cardboard or paperboard disk, cap or plug

(S) Groove in sleeve for igniter wires (T) Handle welded on (optional)

Figure A7.10”.

(Reference documents: ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/96/Add.1)

105

参考資料 No.19




Chapter 2.1 of the Model Regulations – Class 1 definition

Chapter 2.1 of the GHS – Class of explosives

Transmitted by the Australian Explosives Industry Safety Group

(AEISG)15

Introduction

1. In Chapter 2.1 of the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of

Dangerous Goods, Model Regulations, 2.1.1.1 currently reads:

“2.1.1.1 Class 1 comprises:

(a) Explosive substances (a substance which is not itself an explosive

but which can form an explosive atmosphere of gas, vapor or dust is not

included in Class 1), except those that are too dangerous to transport or those

where the predominant hazard is appropriate to another class;

(b) Explosive articles, except devices containing explosive substances

in such quantity or of such a character that their inadvertent or accidental





Secretariat Distr.: General 6 September 2016 Original: English


of Dangerous Goods




Fiftieth session Thirty-second session


Item 2 (b) of the provisional agenda

Recommendations made by the Sub-

Committee on its forty-seventh, forty-eighth


explosives and related matters

Geneva, 7-9 December 2016

Item 2 (a) of the provisional agenda


communication: recommendations made by the

Sub-Committee on its twenty-ninth, thirtieth and

thirty-first sessions

106

ignition or initiation during transport shall not cause any effect external to the

device either by projection, fire, smoke, heat or loud noise (see 2.1.3.6); and

(c) Substances and articles not mentioned under (a) and (b) which are

manufactured with a view to producing a practical, explosive or pyrotechnic

effect.”

2. Similarly, in Chapter 2.1 of the GHS, 2.1.1.2 currently reads:

“2.1.1.2 The class of explosives comprises:

(a) Explosive substances and mixtures;


or mixtures in such quantity or of such a character that their inadvertent or

accidental ignition or initiation shall not cause any effect external to the

device either by projection, fire, smoke, heat or loud noise; and

(c) Substances, mixtures and articles not mentioned under (a) and (b)

above which are manufactured with the view to producing a practical,

explosive or pyrotechnic effect.”

3. The comma after the word ‘practical’ in 2.1.1.1(c) of the Model Regulations

and 2.1.1.2 (c) of the GHS is unnecessary and incorrectly extends Class 1 of the

Model Regulations/the class of explosives of the GHS to include any substance,

mixture or article which is manufactured with a view to producing a practical effect

even if non-explosive in nature.

Discussion

4. AEISG believes the added comma represents an error which has been carried

on from previous editions of the Model Regulations.

5. The phrase “a practical explosive or pyrotechnic effect”, EXCLUDING THE

COMMA, is used in other parts of the existing Model Regulations (nineteenth

revised edition), the Manual of Tests and Criteria (sixth revised edition) and the

GHS (sixth revised edition) including:

• 2.1.3.3.1 of the Model Regulations;

• Figure 10.2 (Box 2), Figure 10.6 (3. Box 2), Figure 10.7 (Box 2), Figure 10.8

(8. Box 35), 16.6.1.4.7(a), 16.6.1.4.7(b) and Appendix 6 (3.1) of the Manual

of Tests and Criteria;

• Figures 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 of the GHS.

6. While the phrase “a practical, explosive or pyrotechnic effect”, WITH

COMMA, appears in 51.2.2 (a) of the current version of the Manual of Tests and

Criteria (sixth revised edition) and 2.17.2.1 (a) of the GHS, this was amended at the

forty-ninth session of the TDG Sub-Committee and at the thirty-first session of the

GHS Sub-Committee to exclude the comma amongst other things

(ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/98, paragraph 138 and ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/62, paragraph 23).

7. The phrase “a practical, explosive or pyrotechnic effect”, with the comma

after the word “practical”, is also used in the Note “b” to Table 2.1.1.

107

Proposals

8. It is proposed to remove the comma after the word “practical” in 2.1.1.1(c) of

the Model Regulations and to clarify intent and to achieve consistency with all other

references throughout the Model Regulations and the Manual of Tests and Criteria,

such that 2.1.1.1 would read:

“2.1.1.1 Class 1 comprises:

(a) Explosive substances (a substance which is not itself an explosive

but which can form an explosive atmosphere of gas, vapour or dust is not

included in Class 1), except those that are too dangerous to transport or those

where the predominant hazard is appropriate to another class;


in such quantity or of such a character that their inadvertent or accidental

ignition or initiation during transport shall not cause any effect external to the

device either by projection, fire, smoke, heat or loud noise (see 2.1.3.6); and

(c) Substances and articles not mentioned under (a) and (b) which are

manufactured with a view to producing a practical explosive or pyrotechnic

effect.”

9. It is proposed to remove the comma after the word “practical” in 2.1.1.2 (c)

and Note b to Table 2.1.1 of the GHS to clarify intent and to achieve consistency

with all other references throughout the GHS, the Model Regulations and the

Manual of Tests and Criteria, such that

2.1.1.2 would read:

“2.1.1.2 The class of explosives comprises:







above which are manufactured with the view to producing a practical

explosive or pyrotechnic effect.’

Note b to Table 2.1.1 would read:

“b This comprises substances, mixtures and articles which are manufactured

with a view to producing a practical explosive or pyrotechnic effect.’

108

参考資料 No.20





Fiftieth session Geneva, 28 November-6 December 2016



on its forty-seventh, forty-eighth and

forty-ninth sessions and pending issues:



Proposals to amend section 10.3.3

Transmitted by the expert from Sweden and the Australian

Explosives Industry and Safety Group Inc. (AEISG)16

Introduction

1. After reviewing section 10.3.3 in the Manual of Tests and Criteria

(ST/SG/AC.10/11/Rev. 6) regarding the application of test methods, particularly test

series 3 and 4, the expert from Sweden and AEISG have identified some

deficiencies in 10.3.3.2 and 10.3.3.4, which need to be revised to make the

information correct in fact, more easily understood and less prone to

misinterpretation.

2. Test Series 3 is designed to determine whether a new substance is too

thermally unstable or too sensitive to be included in Class 1. The substance should

pass all test types in Test Series 3 in order to be provisionally accepted into Class 1.

3. Section 10.3.3.2 provides guidance about the application of Test Series 3. It

contains a description of the purpose of Test Series 3, the decision procedure based

on the test results and what can be done if the substance fails the tests.






109

4. Test Series 4 is designed to determine whether a new article, packaged or

unpackaged, is too thermally unstable or too sensitive to be included in Class 1. Test

Series 4 is also used to determine if a substance that is too dangerous for transport

according to Test Series 3 still can still be included in Class 1, when it is packaged

or encapsulated.

Necessity of revision

5. As illustrated in Figure 10.2, the design principle of Test Series 4 implies that

all new articles, either packaged or unpackaged, shall be subjected to Test Series 4

i.e. test type 4 (a) and test type 4 (b), regardless of whether the substances contained

in the articles have passed Test Series 3. Furthermore, substances that are thermally

stable but are too dangerous for transport according to Test Series 3 are subjected to

test type 4 (b), when they have been packaged or encapsulated. Test type 4 (a) is not

necessary in the latter case, since the substances have already been demonstrated

thermally stable by Test Series 3.

6. However, the wording in 10.3.3.4 is not consistent with the above-stated

principle. The following two incorrect conclusions may be readily derived from a

reading of 10.3.3.4:

• Packaged articles containing substances which have passed Test Series 3

should not be subjected to Test Series 4; and

• All packaged substances, including those containing substances which have

passed Test Series 3, shall be subjected to test type 4 (b).

7. The major part of 10.3.3.2 describes the application of Test Series 3 on

substances. However, in the middle of 10.3.3.2, there is a sentence describing the

application of Test Series 4 on articles, which is repeated later in 10.3.3.4. To make

the text more logical and easily understood, it is considered necessary to re-word

10.3.3.2 so that it only deals with Test Series 3, while 10.3.3.4 deals with Test Series

4.

8. Section 10.3.3.3 contains additional explanations and advices about how

classification tests may be carried out more rationally and efficiently. It deals not

only with Test Series 3 or Test Series 4. For reasons of logical structure and

readability, it is considered a better solution to place 10.3.3.3 after 10.3.3.4 i.e. to

reverse the order of 10.3.3.3 and 10.3.3.4. After these proposed changes, the new

section 10.3.3.2 would deal only with substances, 10.3.3.3 with articles, packaged

articles and packaged substances and 10.3.3.4 with additional information.

Proposal 1

9. To re-word 10.3.3.2 so that it only describes the application of Test Series 3

on substances.

Proposal 2

10. To revise 10.3.3.4 so that the description is consistent with the design

principle of Test Series 4 as illustrated in Figure 10.2.

Proposal 3

11. To reverse the order of 10.3.3.3 and 10.3.3.4 so that the sections are arranged

in the following logical order; 10.3.3.2 on Test Series 3, 10.3.3.3 on Test Series 4

and 10.3.3.4 on additional information for classification tests.

110

The proposed new sections 10.3.3.2, 10.3.3.3 and 10.3.3.4

12. The final text after the proposed amendments is shown below:

“10.3.3.2 The acceptance procedure for substances designed to have an

explosive effect starts with the application of test types 3 (a), 3 (b), 3 (c) and

3 (d) to determine if the substance is too sensitive for transport in the form in

which it is tested. If it proves to be thermally unstable, i.e. it fails test type 3

(c), it is not permitted to be transported. If it fails test types 3 (a), 3 (b) or 3

(d) it may either be encapsulated or otherwise desensitized or packaged to

reduce its sensitiveness to external stimuli. Examples are water-wetted

primary explosives and primary explosives which have been encapsulated in

the form of detonators. The resulting new articles should be submitted to test

series 4, and liquids or packaged solids to a test of type 4 (b), to determine

whether or not their level of safety in transport is consistent with the

requirements of Class 1. Desensitized substances should be re-examined

under test series 3 to determine whether their level of safety in transport is

consistent with the requirements of Class 1. for the same purpose. If a

substance designed to have an explosive effect passes all tests in Test series 3

or an article designed to have an explosive effect passes all tests in series 4,

the procedure for assignment to the appropriate division is applied.”

10.3.3.3 Although test series 1 indicates whether a substance, not designed to

have an explosive effect, has in fact potentially explosive properties, again it

is more appropriate to start the testing procedure with test series 3. These

tests involve relatively small sample sizes, which reduces the risk to test

personnel. If test series 3 indicates that a substance is too sensitive for

transport in the form in which it is tested, then the procedures for reducing its

sensitiveness to external stimuli, outlined in 10.3.3.2, should be applied. If

test series 3 indicates that the substance is not too sensitive for transport, the

next step is the application of test series 2 which determines whether the

substance is too insensitive for inclusion in Class 1. There is no real need to

perform test series 1 at this point in the acceptance procedure since test series

2 answers the pertinent question regarding the degree of insensitiveness of

the substance. Test series 1 is concerned with the resolution of questions

relating to the explosive nature of the substance. The procedure for

assignment to a division of Class 1 should be applied to substances which fail

test series 2 but pass test series 3 i.e. they are not too insensitive for

acceptance into Class 1 nor are they thermally unstable or too dangerous to

transport in the form in which they are tested. It is important to note that a

substance which fails test series 2 may still, if properly packaged, leave Class

1 provided that the product is not designed to have an explosive effect and

does not exhibit any explosive hazard in test series 6 of the assignment

procedure.

“10.3.3.3 All articles or packaged articles containing substances which have

failed test type 3 (a), 3 (b) or 3 (d) should be subjected to test series 4. If the

article or packaged articles pass test type 4 (a), test type 4 (b) is performed.

Encapsulated and/or packaged substances containing substances which have

failed test types 3 (a), 3 (b) or 3 (d) are subjected to test type 4 (b) only. If the

product fails either test type 4 (a) or 4 (b), it should be rejected. However, the

product may be modified and re-tested. If the product passes all the required

tests in Test Series 4, the procedure for assignment to the appropriate division

is applied. If the competent authority suspects that the product may be subject

to stimuli other than those specified in test type 4 (a) and 4 (b) resulting in

potentially dangerous effects, additional information or tests may be required

(see note under paragraph 2.1.3.3.1 of the Model Regulations).”

111

“10.3.3.3 Although test series 1 indicates whether a substance, not designed

to have an explosive effect, has in fact potentially explosive properties, again

it is more appropriate to start the testing procedure with test series 3. These

tests involve relatively small sample sizes, which reduces the risk to test

personnel. If test series 3 indicates that a substance is too sensitive for

transport in the form in which it is tested, then the procedures for reducing its

sensitiveness to external stimuli, outlined in 10.3.3.2, should be applied. If

test series 3 indicates that the substance is not too sensitive for transport, the

next step is the application of test series

2 which determines whether the substance is too insensitive for inclusion in

Class 1. There is no real need to perform test series 1 at this point in the

acceptance procedure, since test series 2 answers the pertinent question

regarding the degree of insensitiveness of the substance. Test series 1 is

concerned with the resolution of questions relating to the explosive nature of

the substance. The procedure for assignment to a division of Class 1 should

be applied to substances which fail test series 2 but pass test series 3 i.e. they

are not too insensitive for acceptance into Class 1 nor are they thermally

unstable or too dangerous to transport in the form in which they are tested. It

is important to note that a substance which fails test series 2 may still, if

properly packaged, leave Class 1 provided that the product is not designed to

have an explosive effect and does not exhibit any explosive hazard in test

series 6 of the assignment procedure.”

112

参考資料 No.21





Fiftieth session Geneva, 28 November-6 December 2016



on its forty-seventh, forty-eighth and

forty-ninth sessions and pending issues:


Transport of energetic samples for further testing

Transmitted by the European Chemical Industry Council

(CEFIC)17

Introduction

1. Research and development in industry, public institutes and universities

frequently have the need to transport substances for the purpose of testing, i.e. the

determination of physical, chemical, biological, toxicological or ecotoxicological

properties and behavior, fitness for use or application.

2. The substances usually consist of organic molecules which are active

ingredients, building blocks or intermediates for pharmaceutical or agricultural

chemicals.

3. Generally, the amounts per substance are small (frequently milligram or

lower gram scale), and reliable information about the proper classification is not

available due to the lack of test data.

4. In many cases, the molecules of the substances carry functional groups listed

in tables A6.1 and/or A6.2 in Annex 6 (Screening Procedures) of the Manual of






113

Tests and Criteria, thus indicating explosive or self-reactive properties; however,

they are not designed to be explosives of Class 1.

5. Whereas the transport of samples of self-reactive substances and organic

peroxides is permitted under the provisions of 2.4.2.3.2.4 (b) and 2.5.3.2.5.1,

respectively, substances considered to meet the criteria for Class 1 are prohibited for

transport by 2.0.4.2 (b).

6. However, at this early stage of development, test data are not available to

distinguish candidates for Class 1 and self-reactive substance of Division 4.1. Thus,

there is a need to find a proper solution for the transport of energetic samples for the

purpose of testing in small amounts, to define appropriate criteria for classification

in cases of limited test data, and to specify the required packaging.

7. For practical purposes, industry has decided to focus on a solution for very

small samples (milligrams to a few grams) in the first phase, and to develop

solutions for medium size (up to about 100 grams) and finally lower kilogram scale

samples (to cover the amounts required for test series 1 and 2 of the Manual of Tests

and Criteria) in the next biennia.

8. During the current biennium, CEFIC had submitted informal document

INF.29 (47th session) as a thought starter, suggesting developing a safe packaging

specification and an entry in Division 4.1 as self-reactive substance for these

energetic samples.

9. Encouraged by the Sub-Committee to proceed in the suggested direction,

industry performed testing at the German Federal Institute for Materials Research

and Testing (BAM) in close cooperation with the German authorities. The results

were presented in informal paper INF.20 (49th session) and give clear evidence that

a safe package design has been found.

10. The concept developed in the informal paper received principal support along

with the task to define more precisely the scope of applicable substances. Building

on discussions with experts in the Working Group on Explosives, a revised scope

has been developed (see section “proposal” below) with the following key elements:

• The scope is limited to organic substances;

• Known and intentional explosives are excluded as well as their synthetic

precursors;

• For samples containing oxidizers, section 3.3 (d) of Appendix 6 of the

Manual of Tests and Criteria was applied. Whereas the Manual mentions

only mixtures, the scope in this proposal has been extended to complexes

and salts.

11. It is not necessary to exclude diazonium salts from the scope since one of the

smallest diazonium compounds available (Azodicarbonamide) was included in the

tests performed (see below). Aromatic diazonium compound have a higher molar

mass and thus are less energetic. Aliphatic diazonium salts are unstable and

decompose immediately so there is no need of mentioning them. Further, by using 1

g of TNT equivalent for initiation in the tests performed, substances far more

energetic than diazonium compounds are covered.

114

Discussion

Sample size and packaging

12. In a first stage of research, pharmaceutical companies frequently ship

complete substance libraries for activity screenings to specialized institutes. For this

purpose, substances may be arranged in so-called multi-titer plates (i.e. array of

several dozens or hundreds of samples) as primary packagings with about 1-10 mg

of individual sample.

13. Substances may be dissolved in an inert solvent before transport if so

required by the test institute. The number of samples in this screening phase is quite

large and may reach a magnitude of 10,000 to 100,000 per year and company.

14. The multi-titer plates are frequently placed in dry ice (see figure 2) for

quality reasons. For transport at ambient temperature, the usual cushioning material

(i.e. bubble wrap, plastic chips, foam pads, etc.) is used.

15. At a later stage (lower gram scale), samples may be put into individual glass

bottles or plastic containers as primary packagings (see figure 3).

Figure 3: Multi-titer plates transported on dry ice

Figure 2: 96 and 384 type multi-titer plate

Figure 4: Plastic vessels for individual substances

115

Sample characteristics

16. Since this paper focuses on energetic samples, only substances with

functional groups listed in tables A6.1 and/or A6.2 in Annex 6 (Screening

Procedures) of the Manual of Tests and Criteria are considered, thus indicating

explosive or self-reactive properties; however, the substances are not designed to be

explosives of Class 1.

17. The energy content of the samples was determined by screening DSC

(heating rate 3 K/min, closed crucible) for a representative set of such substances in

research (see diagram 1). Nearly all substances exhibit a decomposition energy of

less than 3000 J/g, corresponding to the range of typical self-reactive substances and

peroxides and clearly below the range of typical intentional explosives.

Diagram 1: Distribution of energy content (369 substances)

18. However, individual outliers do exist. Upon discussion with several

authorities, CEFIC decided to take a conservative approach for further testing (see

annex).

19. Another issue to be discussed is the decomposition onset: The investigation

of a representative set of substances shows a distribution of the onset over a wide

temperature range (see diagram 2) (DSC at 3 K/min, closed crucible).

%

5 %

10 %

15 %

20 %

25 %

30 %

35 %

40 %

Per

cen

tage

Decomposition energy (J/g)

116

Diagram 2 Distribution of decomposition onset (372 substances)

20. This diagram allows some important conclusions: The onset as determined

by a screening DSC gives only very rough estimates of thermal stability. Substances

with an onset above 200 °C are stable and formally candidates for Class 1. The

candidates for self-reactive substances should primarily be found for substances

with an onset below 200 °C, whereas a small fraction (decomposition onset

<100 °C) might even require temperature control.

21. At this stage, however, neither can the SADT (test series H) be determined

nor can test series 1 or 2 of the Class 1 Acceptance Procedure be performed, and a

decision about a correct classification is simply not possible.

22. Experience from later stages of development has shown that only a very

small fraction of the substances (estimated << 0.1 %) gives a positive result in the

Class 1 Acceptance Procedure according to Test Series 2, whereas about 5 to 10 %

turn out to be self-reactives.

Testing

23. Tests were performed on highly energetic model substances at the German

Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing with different sample

receptacles, amounts and packing arrangements. The essential findings are given in

the annex of this paper.

24. Due to the energy content of the samples, tests were performed

• To assess the effects of a possible thermal decomposition, and

• To investigate the initiation of a detonation and its propagation.

Further, the mechanical stability of the package was tested.

25. As a result, a safe package design was found.

%

5 %

10 %

15 %

20 %

25 %

30 %

35 %

40 %

<100 100-150 150-200 200-250 250-300 >300

Per

cen

tage

Decomposition onset (°C)

117

Proposal

26. Create a new section 2.0.4.3 to read

“2.0.4.3 Samples of energetic materials

2.0.4.3.1 Samples of organic substances carrying functional groups listed in

tables A6.1 and/or A6.2 in Annex 6 (Screening Procedures) of the Manual of

Tests and Criteria may be transported under UN 3224 (solid self-reactive

substances) or UN 3223 (liquid self-reactive substances), as applicable, of

Division 4.1 provided that:

(f) The samples do not contain any known explosives or compounds

designed with the view of producing a practical explosive or pyrotechnic

effect. This restriction also applies to samples consisting of synthetic

precursors of intentional explosives;

(g) For mixtures, complexes or salts of inorganic oxidizing substances

of Division 5.1 with organic material(s), the concentration of the inorganic

oxidizing substance is:

- Less than 15%, by mass, if assigned to packing group I (high

hazard) or II (medium hazard);

- Less than 30%, by mass, if assigned to packing group III (low

hazard);

(h) Available data do not allow a more precise classification; and

(i) The sample is not packed together with other goods.

If solids and liquids are contained within one package, UN 3223 shall be

used.”

27. In the Dangerous Goods List, add PP94 and PP95 in column 9 for UN No.

3223 and 3224 to read

UN

No.

Name and

description

Cla

ss

or

divi

-

sion

Sub

si-

diar

y

risk

UN

packi

ng

group

Speci

al

provi-

sions

Limited

and

excepted

quantitie

s

Packagings and

IBCs

Portable tanks

and bulk

containers

Packin

g

instruct

-tion

Speci

al

packi

ng

provi-

sions

Instru

c-

tions

Special

provisi

ons

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7a) (7

b) (8) (9) (10) (11)

32

23

SELF-REACTIVE

LIQUID TYPE C 4.1 274

25

ml

E

0 P520

PP21

PP94

PP95

32

24

SELF-REACTIVE

SOLID TYPE C 4.1 274

100

g

E

0 P520

PP21

PP94

PP95

118

28. In packing instruction P520, add a new special packing provision PP94 as

follows:

“PP94 Very small amounts of energetic samples of section 2.0.4.3 may be

carried under UN 3223 or 3224, as appropriate, provided that:

1. Only combination packagings with outer packagings comprising

boxes (4A, 4B, 4N, 4C1, 4C2, 4D, 4F, 4G, 4H1 and 4H2) are used;

2. The samples are carried in microtiter plates or multi-titer plates

made of plastic, glass, porcelain or stoneware as inner packagings;

3. The maximum amount per individual inner cavity does not exceed

0.01 g for solids or 0.01 ml for liquids;

4. The maximum net quantity per outer packaging is 20 grams for

solids or 20 ml for liquids, or sum of grams and ml in the case of mixed

packing;

5. Packing method OP2 is applied; and

6. When dry ice or liquid nitrogen is optionally used as a coolant for

quality control measures, the requirements of 5.5.3 are complied with.

Interior supports shall be provided to secure the secondary packagings in the

original position. The primary receptacle and the secondary packaging shall

maintain their integrity at the temperature of the refrigerant used as well as

the temperatures and the pressures which could result if refrigeration were

lost.”

29. In packing instruction P520, add a new special packing provision PP95 as

follows:

“PP95 Small amounts of energetic samples of section 2.0.4.3 may be

carried under UN 3223 or 3224, as applicable, provided that:

1. Outer packagings comprise only type 4G having dimensions of

( wx hy dz);

2. The individual substance is contained in an inner packaging of

glass or plastic of maximum capacity 30 ml placed in a foam matrix having a

density of (xx) g/mm³;

3. Samples are segregated from each other by a foam layer of (xx)

mm thickness and from the wall of the outer package by a foam layer of (yy)

mm thickness;

4. The maximum content of each inner receptacle does not exceed 1 g

for solids or 1 ml for liquids;

5. The maximum net quantity per outer packaging is 20 grams for

solids or 20 ml for liquids, or sum of grams and ml in the case of mixed

packing;

6. Packing method OP2 is applied; and

7. When dry ice or liquid nitrogen is optionally used as a coolant for

quality control measures, the requirements of 5.5.3 are complied with.

Interior supports shall be provided to secure the secondary packagings in the

original position. The primary receptacle and the secondary packaging shall

maintain their integrity at the temperature of the refrigerant used as well as

the temperatures and the pressures which could result if refrigeration were

lost.”

119

30. The dimensions of the outer packaging and the details about the foam layout

as tested (see annex, initiation of detonation and its propagation) will be detailed in a

supplementary informal paper as soon as the test program has been completed.

Justification

(a) Multi-titer plates

31. Since the critical detonation diameter for a sensitive commercial explosive is

about 1 mm, and since even commercial explosives are difficult to initiate in small

amounts without confinement, it can be concluded that even in a worst case scenario

the initiation of a detonation or its propagation in a multi-titer plate is not possible.

32. Further, a thermal decomposition would have no effect outside the package

(see test results below). Due to the small amounts, any other hazardous effects can

be excluded.

(b) Other samples in small amounts

33. The tests performed have shown that for the chosen packaging design

(a) A mass explosion or dangerous projection hazard can be excluded;

(b) Violent burning or strong heat radiation will not occur due to the

design of the package and the large volume and mass of the packaging

material compared to the sample;

(c) Fire fighting in the immediate vicinity is not hindered;

(d) There are no hazardous effects outside the package.

34. The substances are not manufactured with the view of producing a practical

explosive or pyrotechnic effect. Therefore, according to the Procedure for

assignment to a division of Class 1 (Section 10.4 of the Manual of Tests and

Criteria) and the flowchart in figure 10.3, the result is “Not Class 1”.

35. Given the properties of the substances as described in the introduction of this

paper, the classification as self-reactive substances of Division 4.1 seems to be the

most appropriate entry.

120

Annex

Test results

Thermal decomposition

36. Test were performed on azodicarbonamide (solid, 1400 J/g) and a liquid

organic peroxide (1900 J/g decomposition energy).

37. 5 g of the solid substance in a 50 ml glass bottle was put into a plastic bag

which was placed into a 1.5 l HDPE bottle along with foam flakes. This bottle was

put into a cardboard box filled with foam flakes (see figure 4); a similar arrangement

was used for liquids.

Figure 5: Packaging of solid sample for testing

38. The initiation of decomposition by a heating coil or a hot plate resulted only

in minor damage (i.e., broken or melted lid); see figure 5 for results of liquid

material.

39. From these results it can be concluded that thermal decomposition does not

cause any severe effects for small amounts of energetic samples provided that

proper packaging is applied; thus, temperature control for the purpose of safety is

not necessary in these cases.

Initiation of detonation and its propagation

40. Tests were performed with two goals:

(a) To minimize hazardous effects outside the package, and

(b) To find a package design to prohibit propagation of detonation

from one sample to the other.

Before test After test

Figure 6: Result of thermal decomposition test

121

41. A major difficulty was to find an appropriate

detonator. The commercial standard detonators proved to

be unsuitable due to the metallic fragments which

distorted the assessment of the experiments. Finally, a

non-metallic pyrotechnic initiator with a detonative

output was found. This initiator (see figure 6) with the

energy equivalent of 1 g TNT was used throughout the

detonation tests.

42. A fibreboard box (4G) of dimensions 60 cm (length) by 41 cm (width) by 28

cm (height) and a wall thickness of 1,3 cm was used. A foam matrix was

manufactured with recesses for the sample bottles in defined distances from each

other and from the package wall (figure 7).

43. In order to determine safe distances

to prevent a propagation of detonation from

one sample to another, a pilot test was

performed with an initiator (1 g TNT

equivalent; see above) and sample bottles in

defined distances.

44. Whereas total destruction was

observed up to a distance of 30 mm, the

foam matrix remained intact and the glass

bottle was only shattered at 40 mm distance

(see figure 8).

45. Finally, the package specified above was tested with sample containers

placed in the foam matrix. In order to obtain a worst case scenario, the initiator was

placed in the corner at a distance of 7 cm to each wall. The results are shown in

figure 9:

46. Evidently, apart from a superficial crack in the wall of the cardboard box, all

effects are limited to the inside of the package. No material was able to penetrate the

walls of the box or escape to the outside. The immediately adjacent glass bottles

Figure 9: Propagation of detonation at different distances

Figure 7: Metal-free detonative initiator

Figure 8: Foam matrix for sample containers

Figure 10: Effects on package (inside and outside)

122

were broken but their lower part was mostly intact. The glass bottles farther away

remained fully intact.

47. A second test of the same arrangement with samples of dry picric acid placed

around the initiator delivered the same result. A propagation of detonation did not

occur.

48. An external fire test (test series 6, type 6 (c)) was not performed since the

sample mass is small compared to the packaging material, and a safety relevant

effect is not to be expected.

Mechanical stability

49. A drop test (1.8 m, different orientations) resulted only in a slight

deformation of the corner of the cardboard box while the inner receptacles remained

completely undamaged.

123

参考資料 No.22





Fiftieth session




on its forty-seventh, forty-eighth



Clarification of the classification of ammonium nitrate

based fertilizers – proposal for a new Section 39 in the


Transmitted by the expert from Sweden18

Background

1. At the forty-ninth session of the Sub-Committee, the expert from Sweden

presented working document ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/29 containing draft

amendments to the Manual of Tests and Criteria (the Manual) and the Model

Regulations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (the Model Regulations)

for the clarification of the classification criteria for ammonium nitrate (AN)

based fertilizers.19 The document was supplemented by informal documents

INF.5, containing a detailed explanation of the proposed amendments, and

informal document INF.23 with some additional proposals and points for

discussion. 20 The issue was discussed in detail during the meeting of the

Working Group on Explosives (EWG), which met in parallel.



ST/SG/AC.10/42, para. 15). 19 ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/29 20 UN/SCETDG/49/INF.5 and UN/SCETDG/49/INF.23, respectively



124

2. As also explained in the initial paragraphs ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/29, the

reason for clarifying the classification of AN-based fertilizers is that they are

not sufficiently clear as currently formulated, which leads to

misinterpretations (unintended or deliberate). These misinterpretations can

lead to potentially unsafe AN-based fertilizers being transported as non-

dangerous goods. As many downstream regulations use the transport

classification as a basis for other safety measures, e.g. when storing AN-

based fertilizers, the risks associated with these products can transfer further

along the supply chain. Apart from the risk this poses to transporters, other

workers, rescue personnel and the general public, this also leads to unfair

competition amongst suppliers, since the transport and handling of

supposedly “non-hazardous material” is cheaper and subject to less regulatory

restrictions.

3. In order to improve the situation, an ad hoc working group under IGUS21

took it upon themselves to try to clarify the current provisions for

classification of AN-based fertilizers. The group consist of government

experts from Sweden, Netherlands, United Kingdom, France and Germany,

who act solely on the basis of their knowledge of and experience with AN-

based fertilizers. Although not formally part of the group, experts from the

European fertilizer industry also have contributed substantially to the work.

What is presented in this document is the outcome of the work of these

experts over the past two years. Since IGUS has no formal status in the Sub-

Committee, this paper is submitted by the expert from Sweden on behalf of

the IGUS ad hoc working group.

Introduction

4. AN-based fertilizers that are considered to be dangerous goods have two

dedicated UN numbers: 2067 and 2071. In addition, AN in itself has a dedicated UN

number: 1942. Classification as UN 2067 is subject to Special Provisions (SP) 186,

306 and 307, while classification in UN 2071 is subject to SP 186 and 193. SP 306

is also applicable to UN 1942. This paper concerns UN numbers: 2067 and 2071

only, and no changes are proposed for UN1942.

5. SP307 and 193 contain the composition limits for AN-fertilizers that can be

classified in UN 2067 and UN 2071, respectively. Their written text, which appears

to rely on a few implicit understandings and fertilizer-specific terms that are not

spelled out, is not very clear, and even to experts may provide quite a challenge. In

all, this renders the classification provisions for these UN numbers somewhat

unclear, which, as explained above, may lead to potentially unsafe situations. It is

overcoming this problem that has been the focus of the work of the ad hoc working

group under IGUS and a solution to it is proposed in this document.

Proposal

6. It is proposed to introduce in the Manual a new Section 39 containing all the

provisions for classification of AN-based fertilizers. The proposed new Section 39 is

presented in Annex 1 to this document. After the introduction and a few definitions,

21 IGUS is the International Group of experts on the explosion risks of Unstable Substances,

which has been active in the field of hazardous materials, including dangerous goods, for over

50 years. Experts participate in IGUS due to their expertise, and not as representatives of their

country or organization. See www.igus-experts.org for further information.

125

it presents the criteria for classification mainly in the form of a flow chart22. A flow

chart, correctly constructed, has the advantage of reducing the possibilities for

misunderstanding and “falling between the lines” as compared to wording only. As a

consequence of the proposed new Section, current text in both the Manual and the

Model Regulations needs to be amended or removed. These consequential changes

are contained in Annex 2 to this document. In Annex 3 to this document the changes

to the Dangerous Goods List and the affected Special Provisions 186, 193 and 307

are reproduced for clarity.

7. How the proposed flow chart corresponds to the current provisions for AN-

fertilizers has been explained in detail in informal document INF.5 to the forty-ninth

session of the Sub-Committee. Since no major changes to the flow chart have been

made as compared to the one that was presented to that session

(ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/29), the interested reader is referred to that document.

8. It needs to be emphasized that the proposals contained in this document are

not intended to introduce changes to the current classification provisions for AN-

based fertilizers. What is proposed herein is a clarification of the provisions in order

to avoid, or at least minimize, the possibilities for misinterpretations. However, as

the current provisions are not always clear it was necessary to make some

clarifications. Furthermore, a somewhat hidden provision for compound fertilizers

was found to be obsolete and likely unintended, and is proposed to be deleted. Both

the clarifications and the obsolete provision are explained below.

Clarifications made

9. The following clarifications have been made:

(a) Rewording the condition of added material being inert

SP 307 (a), which is applicable to fertilizers with ≥90% AN, contains

the condition that added matter must be “inorganic and inert towards

ammonium nitrate”. In practice, this condition is difficult to fulfil,

since added matter may contain contaminants that are in fact not inert.

Therefore this condition has been rephrased to “Does it contain any

incompatible materials in amounts that could potentially negatively

affect the stability of AN?”, see Box D4 of the flow chart. It is

supplemented by examples of incompatible materials in 39.3.5, and

the requirement in 39.4.8 that any deliberately added materials must

be inorganic and inert towards AN.

(b) Placing a limit on the content of ammonium sulphate

SP 307 (a) and (b) contain no wording directed towards ammonium

sulphate (AS), and in principle would allow AS to be added in

unrestricted amounts. For instance, a fertilizer with 80% AN and 20%

AS would seem to fit in SP 307 (b). However, when reading SP307(c)

it becomes clear that mixtures of AN and AS have special

requirements, which is due to AS being capable of enhancing the

explosive power of AN23. The above example fertilizer is not allowed

22 The numbers and letters in the margins of the flow chart, as well as the grid lines, are to

facilitate discussions only and are not intended to be reproduced in the Manual. 23 See the review of several studies in “Properties of Ammonium Nitrate based fertilizers”,

Ph.D. thesis by Harri Kiiski from Helsinki University, Faculty of science, Department of

Chemistry, 2009 (Chapter 9, Section 9.3.3)

126

to be classified under UN2067 according to SP307(c), since the

amount of AN is >70%, but this is not sufficiently clear.

There is thus currently no concentration limit on AS in SP 307 (a) or

(b), and the proposal is to introduce one. During the meeting of the

Working Group on Explosives at the forty-ninth session of the Sub-

Committee, this seemingly new requirement was noted and discussed,

and it was concluded that introducing such a concentration limit on

AS is indeed justified. Because the industry practice is to frequently

add up to 5% AS to fertilizers in general, for reasons of product

quality, some AS needs to, and from a safety-perspective can, be

allowed in all AN-based fertilizers. In the flow chart, therefore, this

limit of 5% AS has been set throughout for non-compound fertilizers

(see Box D8 and D36 of the flow chart), and it is emphasized by

paragraph 39.4.6. If more AS is added the fertilizer is subject to the

requirement corresponding to SP307(c) (see Box F44 of the flow

chart), unless it is a compound fertilizer.

Compound fertilizers may contain AS as a nutrient and are allowed

any amount of AS in the proposed scheme as long as they contain at

least 10% inorganic materials excluding AN and AS if the AN-content

is >70% (see Box F14 and H14 of the flow chart). This has the effect

of restricting the combined amount of AN and AS (the higher the

amount of AN the lower the allowed amount of AS, and vice versa).

Usually, but not necessarily, these inorganic materials provide the

primary nutrients phosphorus (P) and/or potassium (K). The

requirement of 10% other inorganic materials prevents fertilizers with

high contents of AN and AS to escape the conditions of SP 307 (c) by

addition of small amounts of materials providing P and/or K, which

could qualify them as being compound fertilizers. For compound

fertilizers with ≤70% AN there is no restriction on the AS-content.

(c) Not allowing escape from classification via testing for oxidizing

properties

Classification of AN-based fertilizers as oxidizers is done on basis of

their composition, as is clear from SP307. The reason for this is that

the oxidizing properties of AN are not the most prominent hazard

(which is decomposition). In fact AN, like most simple inorganic

nitrate salts, is a rather weak oxidizer, and fertilizers with quite high

AN contents can escape classification as oxidizers if subjected to

testing (tests O.1 or O.3 according to the Manual of Tests and

Criteria). Furthermore, it is implicit that this is not intended, since if

AN-fertilizers fitting into the descriptions of SP307 were allowed to

escape classification as oxidizers via testing there would be no point

in specifying the composition in SP307 at all. Therefore it is clarified

in 39.4.5 that AN-based fertilizers are not allowed to be exempted

from classification as oxidizers based on results from test O.1 or O.3.

(d) Directing fertilizers that do not fit the descriptions

Currently there is no prescription on how to handle AN-based

fertilizers that do not fit the descriptions in SP307 or SP193. However,

it is clear that fertilizers that do not fit the descriptions because of a

too high content of AN, combustible materials and/or incompatible

materials (including AS) are considered more dangerous than those

fertilizers that do fit the description. In the proposed Section 39, such

non-conforming fertilizers are generally referred to a competent

authority for possible approval for transport under another UN number

(see Box F4, F6, F8, H12, H16, H18, F34, F36 and F42 of the flow

chart as well as paragraph 39.4.3). In the case of fertilizers with a very

127

high AN-content (≥90%) in combination with a high content of

combustible materials (>0.2%), it is clarified that they can only be

classified as explosives (Class 1 for transport)(see Box F6 of the flow

chart). It is also specified that non-compound fertilizers with 70% or

more AN may not contain AS as a nutrient and hence are not allowed

for transport (see 39.4.6 and Box F8 and F36).

(e) Apparent change of applicability for SP307

It is proposed to change the initial sentence of SP307 from "This entry

may only be used for uniform mixtures containing ammonium nitrate

as the main ingredient […]" to "This entry may only be used for

ammonium nitrate based fertilizers. […]", as this is in line with the

terminology used throughout the proposal. While this could be

perceived as a change to the applicability of UN2067, it is in fact

bringing SP307 in line with the existing name and description of

UN2067 in the Dangerous Goods List (Chapter 3.2 of the Model

Regulations), and hence there is no change in practice. The new

wording would also not hinder those jurisdictions that currently

classify (virtually) pure AN of fertilizer grade as UN1942

(Ammonium nitrate) to continue to do so.

Removal of an obsolete condition

10. Quite late in the work, a provision for compound fertilizers was discovered in

Section 38 of the Manual which many experts were unaware of. It is a condition on

the content of “excess nitrate” in paragraph 38.2.3.3 of that Section, which is

considered to most likely have been forgotten to be removed in connection with the

restructuring of the provisions for AN-based fertilizers that took place when the 12th

revised edition of the Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods were

written. After discussions with industry representatives and within the Working

Group on Explosives, it was decided that this condition, if even applied in practice,

has no function since the fertilizers in question are anyhow subjected to the test for

self-sustaining decomposition (the “trough test”, Test S.1). This provision therefore

does not exist in the proposed new Section 39, and is proposed to be deleted from

Section 38.

Final words

11. The proposals made through this document have been discussed over the past

two years between experts from both government and industry. The work has been

presented to the Sub-Committee since its forty-eighth session in December 2015,

and discussed within the Working Group on Explosives since then. The expert from

Sweden, on behalf of the entire working group under IGUS, wishes to thank all the

experts who have been involved for their valuable contributions to the work.

128

Annex I

New Section 39 to be inserted in the Manual of Tests and

Criteria24

Section 39

Classification procedure and criteria relating to solid ammonium


39.1 Purpose



3.3, special provisions 307 and 193.

39.2 Scope

Any new solid fertilizer composition containing ammonium nitrate shall be

subjected to the classification procedure as set out in 39.4.

39.3 Definitions

39.3.1 An ammonium nitrate based fertilizer is a fertilizer containing ammonium

(NH4+) and nitrate (NO3−) ions. See also 39.3.3.

39.3.2 A compound fertilizer is a fertilizer that contains at least two of the three

primary nutrients nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K).

39.3.3 In determining the ammonium nitrate content, all nitrate ions for which a

molecular equivalent of ammonium ions is present in the fertilizer shall be


39.3.4 Combustible substances as referred to in paragraph 39.4 include also non-

organic substances that can be oxidized, e.g. elemental sulphur. For organic

substances the content of combustibles is calculated as carbon.

39.3.5 Materials that are incompatible with ammonium nitrate include e.g. urea,

acids, superphosphates with free acid, elemental sulphur, sulphides and most

transition metals, including heavy metals (e.g. copper), and chlorides. Note however

that this listing is not exhaustive.


39.4.1 Solid ammonium nitrate based fertilizers are classified on the basis of their

composition and experience and knowledge of their hazardous behaviour.

Occasionally, the classification is complemented by testing for the ability to undergo

self-sustaining decomposition or for explosive properties. These principles are

condensed in the flowchart in 39.5.

24 Insertion of this new section has consequences for the Table of Contents of Part III (page

340) and for the General Table of Contents (page iv).

129

39.4.2 UN No. 2067 may only be used for ammonium nitrate based fertilizers that

do not show explosive properties when tested in accordance with Test Series 2 of

this Manual.


classification as UN No. 2067, can be assigned another suitable UN No. in Class 1

or Class 5, Division 5.1, provided that the suitability for transport is demonstrated

and this is approved by the competent authority. This may for instance be when

contamination has occurred in e.g. an accident, so that the fertilizer can be

transported under a suitable UN No. e.g. in Class 1 as approved by the competent

authority.


inclusion in the class of Explosives as set out in 39.5 shall be classified in that class

regardless of the results when tested in accordance with Test Series 2 of this

Manual.


classification as oxidizing solids as set out in 39.5, or are otherwise classified as

oxidizing solids, shall not be exempted from that classification on the basis of the

results from tests O.1 and/or O.3 in Section 34 of this Manual. See also paragraph

34.3.1 in Section 34 of this Manual.

39.4.6 Fertilizers that contain 70 % or more ammonium nitrate shall not

contain ammonium sulphate as nutrient, unless they are compound fertilizers with

less than 90% ammonium nitrate and with at least 10% inorganic materials

excluding ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulphate.

39.4.7 Compound fertilizers that meet the composition limits relevant for potential

inclusion for transport in Class 9 shall be tested for their capability to undergo self-

sustaining decomposition according to the method given in paragraph 38.2.4 of this

Manual (test S.1, trough test) and classified according to criteria given there and in

39.5.

39.4.8 For ammonium nitrate based fertilizers containing 90% or more ammonium

nitrate, any deliberately added matter shall be inorganic and inert towards

ammonium nitrate. See also 39.3.5.


39.5.1 Ammonium nitrate based fertilizers shall be classified in accordance with the

flowchart below.

NOTE to Figure 39.1: AN means ammonium nitrate. AS means ammonium

sulphate

130

Figure 39.1 (a)

B C D E F G H I J

2FERTILIZER FOR

CLASSIFICATION

3

4Does it contain

≥90% AN?YES

Does it contain any


amounts that could

potentially negatively

affect the stability of AN?

(See 39.3.5 and 39.4.8)

YES

Not within the


UN2067. (See 39.4.3)

5 NO NO

6Does it contain >0.2%


(See 39.3.4)

YES

Not within the


UN2067. Classify as

explosive. (See

39.4.4)

7 NO


(See 39.4.6)YES

Not within the


UN2067. (See 39.4.3

and 39.4.6)

9 NO


39.4.2 and 39.4.5)

11

12

Is it a compound

fertilizer

containing AN?

(See 39.3.2)

YES Does it contain >70% AN? YES


combustible

substances? (See

39.3.4)

YES

Not within the


UN2067 or UN2071.

(See 39.4.3)

13 NO NO NO


AS? (See 39.4.6)YES


inorganic materials

excluding AN and AS ?

YES

Classify as UN2067.

(See 39.4.2 and

39.4.5)

15 NO NO

16Classify as UN2067.

(See 39.4.2 and

39.4.5)

Not within the


UN2067 or UN2071.

(See 39.4.3)

17

18 Does it contain ≥45% AN? YES


combustible

substances? (See

39.3.4)

YES

Not within the


UN2067 or UN2071.

(See 39.4.3)

19 NO NO

20


sustaining

decomposition? (See

39.4.7)

YESClassify as UN2071

(See 39.4.7)

21 NO

22Go to

Figure 39.1 (b)Not classified.

131

Figure 39.1 (b)

B C D E F G H I JFrom

Figure 39.1 (a)

34Does it contain

>70% AN?YES



(See 39.3.4)

YES

Not within the


UN2067. (See 39.4.3)

35 NO NO


(See 39.4.6)YES

Not within the


UN2067. (See 39.4.3

and 39.4.6)

37 NO

38

Does it contain ≤80% AN

mixed with calcium

carbonate and/or

dolomite and/or mineral

calcium sulfate?

YES Not classified.

39 NO


39.4.2 and 39.4.5)

42Does it contain

>45% AN?YES



(See 39.3.4)

YES

Not within the


UN2067. (See 39.4.3)

43 NO NO

44 Does it contain >5% AS? YESIs the sum of AN and

AS >70%?YES

Classify as UN2067.

(See 39.4.2 and 39.4.5)

45 NO NO

46 Not classified. Not classified. Not classified.

132

Annex II

Amendments to the Model Regulations and the Manual

of Tests and Criteria

A. Changes to the Model Regulations

In Chapter 2.5






In Chapter 2.9




Solid ammonium nitrate based fertilizers shall be classified in accordance

with the procedure as set out in the Manual of Tests and Criteria, Part III,

Section 39.”


BASED FERTILISER”.

In Chapter 3.2


• For UN No. 2071, delete 186 from column (6) Special provisions.

In Chapter 3.3



"This entry may only be used for ammonium nitrate based compound

fertilizers. They shall be classified in accordance with the procedure as set

out in the Manual of Tests and Criteria, Part III, Section 39. Fertilizers

meeting the criteria for this UN No. are only subject to these Regulations

when transported by air or sea."


“This entry may only be used for ammonium nitrate based fertilizers. They

shall be classified in accordance with the procedure as set out in the Manual

of Tests and Criteria, Part III, Section 39.”

133

B. Changes to the Manual of Tests and Criteria

In Section 34:








In Section 38:



• In paragraph 38.2.3.3, delete the words “and provided they do not contain an

excess nitrate greater than 10% by mass (calculated as potassium nitrate)“




134

Annex III

Reproduction of the changes to the Dangerous Goods

List and the Special Provisions (Chapters 3.2 and 3.3 of

the Model Regulations)

Changes to Dangerous Goods List

UN

No.

Name and

description

Class

or

division

Subsi-

diary

risk

UN

packing

group

Specia

l

provi-

sions

Limited

and

excepted

quantities

Packagings and IBCs Portable tanks and

bulk containers

Packing

instructio

n

Special

packing

provision

s

Instructio

ns

Special

provision

s

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 7(a) 7(b) (8) (9) (10) (11)

2067 AMMONIU

M

NITRATE

BASED

FERTILIZ

ER

5.1 III 186

306

307

5 kg E1 P002

IBC08

LP02

B3 T1

BK1

BK2

BK3

TP33

2071 AMMONIU

M

NITRATE

BASED

FERTILIZ

ER

9 III 186

193

5 kg E1 P002

IBC08

LP02

B3

(Note that SP306 is retained for UN1942 with no change of wording. For UN2067 it

is replaced by 39.4.2 in the new Section 39 with the same requirement.)

135

Changes to Special Provisions

Special

Provision

Current wording New proposed wording Justification

186 In determining the ammonium nitrate

content, all nitrate ions for which a

molecular equivalent of ammonium ions

is present in the mixture shall be


Deleted Replaced by 39.3.3 in

new Section 39 with the

same requirement.


ammonium nitrate based fertilizer

mixtures of the nitrogen, phosphate or

potash type, containing not more than

70% ammonium nitrate and not more

than 0.4% total combustible/organic

material calculated as carbon or with

not more than 45% ammonium nitrate

and unrestricted combustible material.

Fertilizers within these composition

limits are only subject to these

Regulations when transported by air or

sea and are not subject to these

Regulations if shown by a Trough Test

(see Manual of Tests and Criteria, Part

III, sub-section 38.2) not to be liable to

self-sustaining decomposition.

This entry may only be

used for ammonium

nitrate based compound

fertilizers. They shall be

classified in accordance

with the procedure as set

out in the Manual of Tests

and Criteria, Part III,

Section 39. Fertilizers

meeting the criteria for

this UN No. are only

subject to these

Regulations when

transported by air or sea.

Composition limits and

requirement on self-

sustaining

decomposition are

replaced by flow chart in

39.5 of new Section 39.

See also 39.3.2 and

39.4.7 of that Section.


mixtures containing ammonium nitrate

as the main ingredient within the

following composition limits:

(a) [...]

(b) [...]

(c) [...]

This entry may only be

used for ammonium

nitrate based fertilizers.

They shall be classified in

accordance with the

procedure as set out in

the Manual of Tests and

Criteria, Part III, Section

39.

Composition limits are

replaced by flow chart of

39.5 in new Section 39.

Wording aligned with

name of UN No.

according to Dangerous

Goods List.

136

参考資料 No.23





of Dangerous Goods






Item 7 (g) of the provisional agenda


System of Classification and Labelling of

Chemicals:

use of the Manual of Tests and Criteria in

the context of the GHS




communication:

work of the TDG Sub-Committee on matters of

interest

to the GHS Sub-Committee

Use of the Manual of Tests and Criteria in the context of

GHS

Transmitted by the Chairman of the Working Group on

Explosives of the Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of

Dangerous Goods (TDG Sub-Committee) on behalf of the

Working Group25

1. This document contains the proposed list of amendments to the sixth revised

edition of the Manual of Tests and Criteria to take account of its use in the context

of the GHS, as well as the proposed consequential amendments to the Model

Regulations, for consideration by both sub-committees.

2. For practical reasons, the full text of the Manual of Tests and Criteria with the

proposed changes in visible mode (“track-changes”) is circulated separately, in

English only, in informal documents, as follows:

• INF.7 (TDG) – INF.5 (GHS): Section 1



ST/SG/AC.10/42, para. 15).



137

• INF.7/Add.1 (TDG) – INF.5/Add.1 (GHS): Part I (Section 10 to 17)

• INF.7/Add.2 (TDG) – INF.5/Add.2 (GHS): Part I (Section 18)

• INF.7/Add.3 (TDG) – INF.5/Add.3 (GHS): Part II (Section 20 to 28)

• INF.7/Add.4 (TDG) – INF.5/Add.4 (GHS): Parts III, IV and V (Section 30 to

51)

• INF.7/Add.5 (TDG) – INF.5/Add.5 (GHS): Appendices

Note by the secretariat: When cross-checking the amendments in the marked-up

copies of the text of the Manual in the informal documents against the list of

amendments in this document, the secretariat has identified some inconsistencies

and questions requiring further guidance from the sub-committees. They have been

identified in this document as well as in the marked-up copies for consideration by

the sub-committees.

138

参考資料 No.24

第 31 回 GHS 小委員会報告平成 28 年 7 月 27 日



薄葉州

1. 開催期日： 2016 年 7 月 5 日～7 月 8 日

2. 開催場所：スイスジュネーブ国連ユーロッパ本部

3. 議長： Ms. Maureen Ruskin（米国）、

副議長： Mr. Robin Foster（英国及び北アイルランド）

4. 参加国：アルゼンチン、オーストラリア、ベルギー、ブラジル、カナダ、中

国、フィンランド、仏国、ドイツ、イタリア、日本、ケニア、オラン

ダ、ノルウェー、ポーランド、カタール、韓国、ロシア、南アフリ

カ、スェーデン、英国及び北アイルランド、米国

オブザーバー国：ルーマニア、スイス

日本からの出席者：城内（日大）、濱田 (NKKK)、薄葉 (AIST)、他

5. 多国間機関： European Union (EU) 、 Organization for Economic Co-operation and

Development (OECD)

6. 国際機構： International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the United Nations Institute

for Training and Research (UNITAR)


American Cleaning Institute (ACI); Australian Explosives Industry and Safety Group Incorporated

(AEISG); Compressed Gas Association (CGA); Croplife International; Dangerous Goods Advisory Council

(DGAC); European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC); European Industrial Gases Association (EIGA);

Federation of European Aerosol Associations (FEA); Grain and Feed Trade Association (GAFTA);

Industrial Federation Paints and Coat of Mercosul (IFPCM); International Association for Soaps,

Detergents and Maintenance Products (AISE); International Bulk Terminals Association (IBTA);

International Confederation of Container Reconditioners (ICCR); International Council of Chemical

Associations (ICCA); International Paint and Printing Ink Council (IPPIC); International Petroleum

Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA); Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME);

Responsible Packaging Management Association of Southern Africa (RPMASA) and Sporting Arms and

Ammunition Manufacturer’s Institute (SAAMI).


Australian Explosives Industry Safety Group (AEISG)

Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME)

Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI)

139

8. 会議議事録

8-1 議案の承認

省略

8-2 GHS の更新

物理化学的危険性関連

8-2-1 GHS 第 2.1 章「爆発物」の見直し

関係書類： ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/7 - SG/AC.10/C.4/2016/2 （AEISG）

ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/47 - ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2016/10 （SAAMI）

UN/SCETDG/49/INF.15 - UN/SCEGHS/31/INF.5 （AEISG）

UN/SCETDG/49/INF.45 - UN/SCEGHS/31/INF.12 （カナダ）

UN/SCETDG/49/INF.37 - UN/SCEGHS/31/INF.10 （スウェーデン）

UN/SCEGHS/31/INF.22 （火薬 WG 議長）

議題概要

本案件はオーストラリアが 2014 年の第 24 回 GHS に提出した提案（UN/SCEGHS/27/INF.20）

が出発点になっており、その目的は、GHS の中の 2.1 章「爆発物」が TDG の分類をそのまま使

っており、輸送容器が無い状態の火薬類の製造、貯蔵、消費等における分類に対応できていない

ため、輸送以外にも使えるように見直してほしいというものであった。当初オーストラリアのリ

ーダーシップで非公式 WG を開催する予定であったが、現在はスウェーデンが非公式 WG の議

論を取りまとめている。今回スウェーデンが提出した UN/SCETDG/49/INF.37 がその議論の経過

報告である。ただしこれと並行して AEISG、SAAMI 及びカナダが具体的な 2.1 章の見直しを提

案した。

AEISG は 2.1 章の爆発物の定義、分類判定基準（表 2.1.1）、ラベル要素（表 2.1.2）、分類フロ

ーチャート（図 2.1.1）など 2.1 章全体に及ぶ見直しを提案している。一方 SAAMI とカナダは

2.1.3 のラベル要素（表 2.1.2）のみの見直しを提案している。

火薬 WG での議論と結果

爆発物の製造から消費までの各段階に対する GHS の適用範囲があいまいなため、これを

明確化する必要がある。

GHS 分類は輸送の分類、即ち容器包装に依存しない形にすべきである。従って現行の表

2.1.2 のラベル要素（下表）については、輸送の分類にかかわらず統一すべきである。輸

送容器から出した爆発物の詳細な危険性の差異は SDS によって伝達可能である。

現行の表 2.1.2（参考）

Unstable

Explosive

Division

1.1

Division

1.2

Division

1.3

Division

1.4

Division

1.5

Division

1.6

Symbol Explodin

g

bomb

Exploding

bomb

Exploding

bomb

Exploding

bomb

Exploding

bomb;

or 1.4 on orange

backgrounda

1.5 on orange

backgrounda

1.6 on orange

backgrounda

Signal

word

Danger Danger Danger Danger Warning Danger No signal

word

Hazard

statement

Unstable

Explosive

Explosive;

mass

explosion

hazard

Explosive;

severe

projection

hazard

Explosive;

fire, blast or

projection

hazard.

Fire or

projection

hazard

May mass

explode in fire

No hazard

statement

140

上表 2.1.2 の“Unstable Explosive”は、元来、輸送に適さないという意味であるが、GHS

に用いられると、「不安定で危険な爆発物」という意味に誤解される。従って“Unstable

Explosive”以外の表現方法を検討すべきであろう。

区分 1.4 及び“Unstable Explosive”を除いた爆発物は、全て Symbol：Exploding bomb、

Signal Word: “Danger”、Hazard statement：”Explosive”に統一すべきであろう。

区分 1.4 の爆発物については、適切なラベリング要素がまだ見いだせないが、輸送容器か

ら出してもほとんど危険性のないものについては、他の爆発物と区別することは同意でき

る。

これら区別すべき爆発物は、国連番号や補足パラメータによって指定することが考えられ

る。しかしまだ同意に達していない。

GHS 特有の「カテゴリー」表現を用いることも一つの方法であり、例えば“Unstable

Explosive”をカテゴリ１と呼ぶことが考えられる。

結局、火薬 WG と TDG 全体会議においては、上記のアイデアを基に、非公式 WG で更に議論

を進めることが合意された。

GHS での議論と結果

本議論はまだ進行中であるので、担当者は、委員からのコメントを集約して、次回に向けて提

案文書を作成していくことになった。

なお、爆発物の製造から消費までのどの段階で GHS 分類を行うべきかが明確でないという意

見があった。そこで、これを明確化するため、火薬 WG 議長から INF.22 が提出された。これは

GHS 1.1.2 “Scope”内の 1.1.2.6 “Other scope limitations”に新たな下記の節を追加するものであ

る。これに対し、GHS 全体会議ではおおむね支持が得られたが、このような記述の導入に慎重

な意見も出された。

結局、コメントを勘案した上で、再提案されることが求められた。

1.1.2.6.3 The danger posed by physical hazards depends to some degree on factors

other than intrinsic properties such as the amount, packaging, configuration and

confinement. Furthermore, these factors may change during the life-cycle. Therefore it

may not be feasible to fully apply the classification criteria and labelling elements for

physical hazards in all situations, such as manufacturing and processing operations. In

such cases risk assessments may be necessary. These could be aided by GHS criteria

and by test results, and GHS hazard communication elements may be applied as

appropriate.

和訳

1.1.2.6.3 物理化学的危険性は、物質特有の性質以外の要因、例えば量、包装、

形状及び閉じ込め方等にある程度依存する。更にこれらの要因は物質のライフ

サイクルの過程で変化する可能性がある。従って、分類の判定基準やラベル要

素を、全ての状況、例えば製造や加工過程に完全に適用することができない可

能性がある。そのような場合はリスク評価が必要になる。これらには GHS の

分類基準や試験結果が役立つ可能性がある。また GHS の危険有害性に関する

情報伝達も適宜適用してよい。

8-2-2 試験及び判定基準マニュアルの改訂

関係書類： UN/SCETDG/49/INF.4 (UN/SCEGHS/31/INF.3) （マニュアル改訂 WG 議長）

and Adds. 1 – 5

141

UN/SCETDG/49/INF.6 (UN/SCEGHS/31/INF.4) （カナダ, FEA）

議題概要及び結論

試験及び判定基準のマニュアルを GHS からも利用することを想定した見直しが行われてき

た。今回、火薬 WG では INF.4 と INF.4/add.1 の内容を審議・確認した。残りの部分についてはマ

ニュアル改訂 WG が継続して確認作業を行い、今期内の正式提案文書の作成を目指すことになっ

ている。

8-2-3 GHS における鈍感化爆発物の分類判定基準の明確化

関係書類： ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/30 - ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2016/6 （AEISG、SAAMI）

議題概要

鈍感化爆発物をカバーする新しい 2.17 章が GHS 改訂 6 版に加えられた。これによれば、鈍感

化されたすべての爆発物は、以下の場合を除いてこのクラスで検討されなければならない。即ち

(a)実質的に爆発物又は火工品をつくる目的で製造されたもの、又は (b)試験シリーズ 6(a)又は

6(b)により大量爆発危険性のあるもの、又は危険物輸送に関する国連勧告、試験方法及び判定基

準マニュアルの第 V 部、小節 51.4 に記載の燃焼速度試験による補正燃焼速度が 1200 kg/min を超

えるもの；又は(c) 発熱分解エネルギが 300 J/g 未満のもの。

ところが SAAMI 等の経験では、(a)の条件が誤解されて解釈され、結果的に鈍感化爆薬である

はずのもの（例えば湿 TNT(UN1356)）が爆発物として区分されることがある。なぜなら、これ

らの物品が、やがて鈍感化剤を取り除き爆発物としてその物質を使用する意図があるためと解釈

されるためである。提案者らは、この記述は修正されるべきであると考え、以下の修正を提案し

た。即ち、GHS の 2.17.2.1 を以下のように修正する：

鈍感化されたどのような爆発物もこのクラスで検討されなければならな

い、ただし、爆発物使用のため後で再鋭感化及び再分類化されるかどうか

に関係なく、鈍感化された状態の物質が次のどれかの条件にあてはまる場

合はその限りではない：(a)実質的に爆発物又は火工品をつくる目的で製造

されたもの、又は・・・

(b)(c)の“their”を“the”に変更する以外は同文。以下省略


提案内容は依然としてわかりづらいという意見があり、更なる修正が行われ合意された。その

結果、下記の修正内容が火薬 WG で承認された。

試験マニュアルに対する修正

Section 51.2.2 – amend as shown below:

51.2.2 The appropriate classification procedures for desensitized

explosives should be undertaken before they are offered for

supply and use unless, in that state:

(a) They are manufactured with the view to producing a

practical, explosive or pyrotechnic effectThey are intended to

produce a practical explosive or pyrotechnic effect;

(b) They have a mass explosion hazard according to Test

142

Series 6(a) or 6(b) or theirthe corrected burning rate according

to the burning rate test 51.4 is more than 1 200 kg/min;

(c) TheirThe exothermic decomposition energy is less than

300 J/g2.

GHS に対する修正

Section 2.17.2.1 – amend as shown below:


considered in this class, unless: Any explosive while

in a desensitized state shall be considered in this

class unless, in that state:

(a) It is manufactured with the view to producing

a practical, explosive or pyrotechnic effectIt is

intended to produce a practical explosive or

pyrotechnic effect; or


test series 6 (a) or 6 (b) or theirthe corrected

burning rate according to the burning rate test

described in part V, subsection 51.4 of the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Manual of Tests and Criteria is

greater than 1200kg/min; or

(c) TheirThe exothermic decomposition energy is

less than 300J/g.

NOTE 1: Substances or mixtures which meet the criterion (a) or (b) in their desensitized state shall be classified as explosives, see chapter 2.1. Substances or mixtures which meet the criterion (c) may fall within the scope of other physical hazard classes.


GHS での議論と結果

GHS 全体会議でこの提案が承認され、修正が確定した。

以下省略

以上

143

参考資料 No.25

第 32 回 GHS 小委員会報告平成 29 年 1 月 24 日



薄葉州

1. 開催期日： 2016 年 12 月 7～9 日

2. 開催場所：スイスジュネーブ国連ユーロッパ本部

3. 議長： Ms. Maureen Ruskin（米国）、

副議長： Mr. Robin Foster（英国及び北アイルランド）

4. 参加国：アルゼンチン、オーストラリア、ベルギー、ブラジル、カナダ、中

国、フィンランド、仏国、ドイツ、イタリア、日本、オランダ、ニュ

ージーランド、ノルウェー、ポーランド、ポルトガル、カタール、韓

国、ロシア、南アフリカ、スェーデン、英国及び米国

オブザーバー国：スイス

日本からの出席者：城内（日大）、濱田 (NKKK)、薄葉 (AIST)、他

5. 多国間機関： European Union (EU

6. 国際機構： International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the United Nations Institute

for Training and Research (UNITAR)


American Cleaning Institute (ACI); Australian Explosives Industry and Safety Group Incorporated

(AEISG); Compressed Gas Association (CGA); Croplife International; Dangerous Goods Advisory Council

(DGAC); European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC); European Industrial Gases Association (EIGA);

Federation of European Aerosol Associations (FEA); Grain and Feed Trade Association (GAFTA);

International Association for Soaps, Detergents and Maintenance Products (AISE); International Bulk

Terminals Association (IBTA); International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA); International

Council of Mining and Metals (ICMM); International Dangerous Goods and Containers Association

(IDGCA); International Paint and Printing Ink Council (IPPIC); International Petroleum Industry

Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA); Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME); Responsible

Packaging Management Association of Southern Africa (RPMASA) and Sporting Arms and Ammunition

Manufacturer’s Institute (SAAMI).


Australian Explosives Industry Safety Group (AEISG)

Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME)

Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI)

144

8. 会議議事録

8-1 議案の承認

省略

8-2 GHS の更新

物理化学的危険性関連

8-2-1 GHS 第 2.1 章「爆発物」の見直し

関係書類： UN/SCETDG/50/INF.11 - UN/SCEGHS/32/INF.8 - (スウェーデン)

UN/SCETDG/50/INF.18 - UN/SCEGHS/32/INF.15 - (米国)

議題概要

本案件はオーストラリアが 2014 年の第 24 回 GHS に提出した提案（UN/SCEGHS/27/INF.20）

が出発点になっており、その目的は、GHS の中の 2.1 章「爆発物」が TDG の分類をそのまま使

っており、輸送容器が無い状態の火薬類の製造、貯蔵、消費等における分類に対応できていない

ため、輸送以外にも使えるように見直してほしいというものであった。当初オーストラリアのリ

ーダーシップで非公式 WG を開催する予定であったが、現在はスウェーデンが非公式 WG の議

論を取りまとめている。今回スウェーデンが提出した UN/SCETDG/50/INF.11 がその議論の今期 2

年間の経過をまとめたものである。今期 2 年間の活動では正規提案の文書を作成できなかった

が、スウェーデンが主導してまとめた第 2.1 章と爆発物に対する GHS ラベルのドラフト案が付録

として記載されている。


新規な GHS 分類手順は段階的に決められていく必要があり、今回スウェーデンから出さ

れたドラフト案に対しては精査する必要があるという意見が米国から INF 文書によって表

明された。

GHS の本文には、GHS は決して物質のイントリンジックな性質のみに注目するわけでは

なく、容器を含めた物品の分類も可能であると解釈される記述があるという指摘があった。

「1.3.2.1.1 GHS は純粋な物質とその希釈溶液及び混合物に適用する。米国労働安全衛生局

（OSHA）の危険有害性周知基準（29CFR1910.1200）及び同様の定義項目に定められてい

る「物品（Article）」は、本システムの範囲から除外される。」

29 CFR 1910.1200 における物品（Article）の定義は、

製造物であって：(i) 製造の過程で特定の形状や構造にされ；(ii) その形状や構造の１部

又は全部に依存する、最終的な機能・用途を持ち；そして(iii) 通常使用時に、内部の危

険化学品を放出又は露出しないもの。

火薬 WG は、GHS 分類と TDG 分類の関連性について議論し、GHS2.1 章の改正によって、

輸送、貯蔵あるいは消費等のいかなるセクターも、不本意な影響を受けないようにすべき

であることが確認された。

結局、本議論の結論を出すことは延期し、次期 2 年で継続することになった。

以下省略

以上

145

参考資料 No.26

Status report on the work of the informal correspondence group

on the revision of GHS Chapter 2.1

Transmitted by the expert from Sweden

Background

1. During the biennium 2015-2016, work has been conducted to revise Chapter

2.1 of the GHS on Explosives. The work was initiated by the expert from Australia26

and has been led by the expert from Sweden since the twenty-ninth session of the

Sub-Committee of Experts on the Globally Harmonized System (SCEGHS) in July

201527. The documents by the experts from Australia and from Sweden referred to

contain the reasons for the undertaking of the work, which are not repeated herein.

An Informal Correspondence Group (ICG) was formed in August 2015 which, with

a few additional experts joining in at later stages, currently consists of almost thirty

experts, most of them from the Working Group on Explosives (EWG) under the

Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (SCETDG). Status

reports on the work of the ICG have been submitted to both Sub-Committees for

their sessions in December 201528 and June/July 201629, and discussions have taken

26 ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2014/15 - ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2014/79 27 See UN/SCEGHS/29/INF.13 and the report from the twenty-ninth session of the SCEGHS

(ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/58) 28 UN/SCEGHS/30/INF.9 -UN/SCETDG/48/INF.32 29 UN/SCEGHS/31/INF.10 - UN/SCETDG/49/INF.37

UN/SCETDG/50/INF.11

UN/SCEGHS/32/INF.8



and Labelling of Chemicals 27 October 2016

Sub-Committee of Experts on the

Transport of Dangerous Goods









Chemicals: review of Chapter 2.1 of the

GHS


Item 2 (g) of the provisional agenda


communication: miscellaneous

146

place at the meetings of the EWG in parallel to these sessions. A dedicated meeting

on this topic was also held during the thirty-first session of the SCEGHS, in which

many experts from that Sub-Committee attended.

Recent developments

2. At the meeting of the EWG during the forty-ninth session of the SCETDG,

extensive discussions revolving around potential modifications of the labelling

elements for Explosives took place. The background to this is that the classification

of Explosives into Divisions is done as packaged, and the explosive behaviour may

depend on that particular packaging which is usually the transport packaging. Since

the GHS-labelling elements are tied to the Division (see Table 2.1.2 in Chapter 2.1

of the GHS), this may lead to an inadequate warning for the explosive behaviour

when the Explosive is taken out of the packaging (or configuration) in which it was

classified. This problem has been described in more detail as Workstream 2 in

previous documents on the review of Chapter 2.1.30

3. It was felt by many members of the ICG that the GHS-labelling should be

generalized, which would overcome the Division-dependence of the current GHS

hazard statements. The suggested simplified labelling elements were:

Symbol: Exploding bomb (GHS01)

Signal word: Danger

Hazard statement: Explosive

However, it was felt by several experts that this general labelling would exaggerate

the hazard for certain Explosives, in particular for some articles which do not pose a

significant explosion hazard. It was pointed out that a too strong warning for an

explosion hazard for these items could lead to unwanted consequences when

applying downstream regulations relating e.g. to building codes and storage

requirements 31 . Other experts were reluctant to remove the current hazard

statements connected to the Division, and felt that information would be lost with

the generalized labelling. It was also put forward that application of down-stream

regulations may depend on the Division being known, and a suggestion was

therefore to add the Division number of the Explosive as packaged (or configured)

for transport as supplemental information on the GHS label (see Section 1.4.6.3 in

Chapter 1.4 of the GHS). While this might solve some down-stream issues, there

was concern that introducing the Divisions on the label of inner packages would

perpetuate the problem of potentially misleading labelling of non-transport

packages, and there was no consensus on the matter.

4. During the discussions at the EWG-meeting, the idea was put forward to

introduce Categories in the classification of Explosives. This would provide a way

of distinguishing Explosives that do not provide a hazard significant enough to

motivate the general labelling, by referring them to a Category of their own. In

addition, the introduction of Categories would also resolve the debated issue of the,

to most ICG-members, misleading denotation “Unstable explosives”, which would

then instead form a Category of their own. It was suggested that Unstable explosives

would be referred to Category 1, while all other Explosives (i.e. Divisions 1.1 – 1.6)

would be in Category 2 and be assigned the generalized labelling elements as above.

In order to overcome the problem of a too strong warning for those Explosives that

do not pose a significant explosion hazard, it was suggested to split Category 2 into

Sub-Categories 2A and 2B, where the latter would contain those less hazardous

30 UN/SCEGHS/29/INF.13 and UN/SCEGHS/31/INF.10 - UN/SCETDG/49/INF.37 31 See also ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2016/10 - ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/47

147

Explosives and be assigned less severe labelling elements. It was also discussed

whether it would be better to introduce a Category 3 for this purpose instead of

dividing Category 2, in relation to the way the GHS allows Sub-Categories to be

merged and the building block approach (see Section 1.1.3 of Chapter 1.1 of the

GHS).

5. The ICG has been working much on the conditions under which an Explosive

would be classified as belonging to Sub-Category 2B. During the meeting of the

EWG in June 2016, it was proposed to distinguish these Explosives by virtue of the

UN-numbers assigned for the transportation in accordance with the UN

Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. An initial list of these

UN-numbers was put forward (in a slightly different context) in an informal

document by the expert from Canada32, and this list was refined during the EWG-

meeting. Further discussions have taken place over email since then, and in Annex 2

to this document the current list of potential UN-numbers for assignment to Sub-

Category 2B is shown. Most experts agree that the list of UN-numbers should be

limited to Explosives classified as Division 1.4 for transport, and many experts think

that only articles in Division 1.4 that in themselves, regardless of packaging, do not

pose a significant explosion hazard can be considered for Sub-Category 2B. Other

experts, however, think that additional Explosives could be assigned to Sub-

Category 2B under the condition that any packaging that mitigates the explosive

effect is retained, and a few experts do not favour the use of UN-numbers at all and

prefer the conditions of Sub-Category 2B to be stated in another way. There have

also been concerns raised as to the practicability of retaining packaging when

Explosives are put on display for retail purposes, and exceptions for this situation

have been suggested.

6. In addition to the above topics, there have also been discussions on

introducing the proper criteria for Explosives (which are currently missing from

Chapter 2.1), amending the precautionary statements for Explosives and further

initiatives to make amendments to the current text of Chapter 2.1 e.g. removing

some potentially misleading commas.33 The applicability of the GHS to situations

such as manufacturing and processing of Explosives has also been raised on

multiple occasions, and is a topic that could be relevant also for other physical

hazards34.

7. In the dedicated meeting on the revision of Chapter 2.1 during the thirty-first

session of the SCEGHS, the problems with the current GHS-labelling of Explosives

as described in INF. 13 to the twenty-ninth session of the SCEGHS were presented,

and some further aspects as described in other documents35 on this topic were also

raised. The discussions held in the EWG as outlined above were summarized and

draft amendments to Chapter 2.1 were shown and discussed, in particular the

generalized labelling elements and the introduction of Categories in the

classification as explained above.

Current state of the work

8. Despite intense email-discussions within the ICG after the sessions of the

Sub-Committees in June/July 2016, it was not possible to conclude on all the new

ideas and form them into a formal proposal for changes to Chapter 2.1 in the limited

time between those sessions and the deadline for submission of documents to the

32 UN/SCETDG/49/INF.45 - UN/SCEGHS/31/INF.12 33 See also ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2016/2 - ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/7, as well as ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2016/14 -

ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/53. 34 See UN/SCEGHS/31/INF.22, as well as ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2016/10 - ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/47 35 See UN/SCEGHS/29/INF.13 and UN/SCEGHS/31/INF.10 - UN/SCETDG/49/INF.37

148

December 2016 sessions. However, for information purposes the draft revised

Chapter 2.1 as it was circulated for comments within the ICG in early August 2016

is attached as Annex 1. It should be noted that many comments were received but

have not been included in the text as displayed in the annex since opinions were

divided and hence further discussions are necessary. Furthermore, the extensive

changes to the Chapter could have down-stream effects that need to be analysed

before they are introduced. The consequences of the changes also need to be

weighed in relation to the problems they are intended to solve.

9. For illustration purposes, examples of GHS-labels for three Explosives are

shown in Annex 3. The examples display the GHS-label resulting from application

of the current provisions of Chapter 2.1 and from applying the provisions of the

revised Chapter 2.1 as outlined in Annex 1 to the same Explosive. Note that the

labels in Annex 3 may not adhere in every detail to the GHS as implemented in

various jurisdictions.

Future outlook

10. It is expected that the work on the review of Chapter 2.1 will continue in the

biennium 2017-2018. It can also be anticipated that the EWG will discuss this

matter during their meeting in parallel to the fiftieth session of the SCETDG. There

will also be a dedicated meeting during the thirty-second session of the SCEGHS for

discussion of this subject36, and it should be noted in this context that some of the

topics under discussion revolve around more principal GHS-issues, that may extend

beyond Chapter 2.1, rather than technical matters relating to Explosives alone.

36 See UN/SCEGHS/32/INF.7 for further information.

149

Annex 1 - Draft revised Chapter 2.1 as sent out to the ICG in early August 2016

Changes, as compared to GHS Rev. 6, are to Sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 only, apart

from:

- Deletion of the definition of “pyrotechnic article” in Section 2.1.1, which is a

term not used.

- A possible new paragraph 2.1.4.2.4 at the end of Section 2.1.4.

- Figures 2.1.1 and 2.1.2, which replace current Figures 2.1.1 and 2.1.4. Note

also that the detailed flow-charts in current Figures 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 have been

omitted, since they are a virtual duplication of the corresponding figures in the UN

Manual of Tests and Criteria which is subject to proposed amendments to adapt it to

the GHS (see ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2016/16 - ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/83).

The last sentences in paragraph 2.1.4.1 have been amended to reflect these changes

to the figures.

Since the changes to the Chapter are extensive, the original text is not displayed. For

comparison, see the current text of the Chapter in GHS Rev.6.

Note that the text only reflects what was sent out to the ICG for comments in August

2016.

______________________________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER 2.1

EXPLOSIVES

2.1.1 Definitions and general considerations

2.1.1.1 An explosive substance (or mixture) is a solid or liquid substance (or

mixture of substances) which is in itself capable by chemical reaction of producing

gas at such a temperature and pressure and at such a speed as to cause damage to the

surroundings. Pyrotechnic substances (and mixtures) are included even when they

do not evolve gases.

A pyrotechnic substance (or mixture) is a substance or mixture of

substances designed to produce an effect by heat, light, sound, gas or smoke or a

combination of these as the result of non-detonative self-sustaining exothermic

chemical reactions.

An explosive article is an article containing one or more explosive

substances or mixtures.

2.1.1.2 The class of explosives comprises:






150


above which are manufactured with the view to producing a practical,

explosive or pyrotechnic effect.

NOTE: Some explosive substances and mixtures are wetted with water or alcohols,

diluted with other substances or dissolved or suspended in water or other liquid

substances to suppress or reduce their explosives properties. They may be a candidate

for classification as desensitized explosives (see Chapter 2.17) or may be treated

differently from explosive substances and mixtures (as desensitized explosives) for

some regulatory purposes (e.g. transport), see 1.3.2.4.5.2.


2.1.2.1 Substances, mixtures and articles of this class are assigned to one of two

categories in accordance with the criteria in Table 2.1.1.

Table 2.1.1: Criteria for explosives

Category Criteria

1 - Substances and mixtures which show positive results in UN Test Series 3; and

- articles which [, as packaged for transport] show positive results in UN Test Series 4 of the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods - Manual of Tests and Criteria; and

- ammonium nitrate emulsion, suspensions and gels which show positive results in Test 8(a) of the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods - Manual of Tests and Criteria.

2 Substances, mixtures and articles which do not fulfil the criteria for inclusion

in Category 1; and

- have been manufactured with a view to produce an explosive or pyrotechnic effect; or

- are substances or mixtures which show positive effects in UN Testseries 2 of the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Manual of Tests and Criteria and which, as packaged, are not excluded from the hazard class of explosives on basis of their behaviour in Test Series 6; or

- are articles containing explosive substances or mixtures and which are not excluded from the hazard class of explosives by definition of 2.1.1.2(b); or

- are ammonium nitrate emulsions, suspensions or gels which show positive results in Test 8(b) or 8(c) of the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Manual of Tests and Criteria.

2.1.2.2 Explosives in category 2 are further assigned to sub-category A or B in

accordance with the criteria in Table 2.1.2.

151

Table 2.1.2 Criteria for sub-categories of explosives in category 2

Sub-category Criteria

2A Explosives in Category 2, except those that fulfil the criteria for being classified in sub-

category 2B.

2B [Explosive articles/Explosives] in Category 2 which fulfil the conditions for being assigned

the following UN-numbers in accordance with the UN Recommendations on the Transport

of Dangerous Goods, Model Regulations*:

[0012; 0014; 0044; 0055; 0066; 0070; 0105; 0131; 0173; 0174; 0191; 0197; 0276; 0278;

306; 0312; 0317; 0323; 0325; 0336; 0337; 0338; 0339; 0345; 0368; 0373; 0379; 0403;

0404; 0405; 0425; 0446; 0454; 0503; 0505; 0506; 0507; [0509;] 0510.]

[* The assignment of the UN-number may depend on mitigation of the explosive

effect by one or more levels of packaging such that, without that packaging, the

assignment is no longer valid. Such articles cannot be classified in Sub-category 2B

unless they retain all the levels of packaging that provide the mitigating effect.]

[For the purpose of retail display of a limited number of items, only the innermost

packaging needs to be retained [, unless a competent authority requires otherwise].]

NOTE: For classification tests on solid substances or mixtures, the tests should be

performed on the substance or mixture as presented. If for example, for the purposes

of supply or transport, the same chemical is to be presented in a physical form

different from that which was tested and which is considered likely to materially alter

its performance in a classification test, the substance or mixture must also be tested in

the new form.

2.1.2.3 [For some regulatory purposes (e.g. transport),] explosives in category 2

are assigned to one of six divisions in accordance with Chapter 2.1 of the UN

Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Model Regulations. The

allocation to a division is generally done on basis of results in UN Testseries 5-7 of

the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Manual of Tests

and Criteria.

Table 2.1.3: Divisions of explosives in category 2 [(for some regulatory purposes)]

Division Description

1.1 Substances, mixtures and articles which have a mass explosion hazard (a mass explosion is one

which affects almost the entire quantity present virtually instantaneously);

1.2 Substances, mixtures and articles which have a projection hazard but not a mass explosion hazard;

1.3 Substances, mixtures and articles which have a fire hazard and either a minor blast hazard or a minor

projection hazard or both, but not a mass explosion hazard:

(i) combustion of which gives rise to considerable radiant heat; or

(ii) which burn one after another, producing minor blast or projection effects or both;

152

1.4 Substances, mixtures and articles which present no significant hazard: substances, mixtures and

articles which present only a small hazard in the event of ignition or initiation. The effects are largely

confined to the package and no projection of fragments of appreciable size or range is to be expected.

An external fire shall not cause virtually instantaneous explosion of almost the entire contents of the

package;

1.5 Very insensitive substances or mixtures which have a mass explosion hazard: substances and

mixtures which have a mass explosion hazard but are so insensitive that there is very little probability

of initiation or of transition from burning to detonation under normal conditions;

1.6 Extremely insensitive articles which do not have a mass explosion hazard: articles which

predominantly contain extremely insensitive substances or mixtures and which demonstrate a

negligible probability of accidental initiation or propagation.

NOTE: Explosives in divisions 1.1 to 1.6, may, for some regulatory purposes (e.g.

transport), be assigned compatibility groups A to S (see UN Recommendations on the

Transport of Dangerous Goods, Model Regulations, Chapter 2.1).

2.1.3 Hazard communication

General and specific considerations concerning labelling requirements are

provided in Hazard communication: Labelling (Chapter 1.4). Annex 1 contains

summary tables about classification and labelling. Annex 3 contains examples of

precautionary statements and pictograms which can be used where allowed by the

competent authority.

Table 2.1.3: Label elements for explosives

Category 1 2

2A 2B

Division No division

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.4

Symbol Exploding

bomb

Exploding

bomb

Exploding

bomb

Exploding

bomb

Exploding

bomb;

or

1.4 on

orange

backgroun

da

Exploding

bomb;

or

1.5 on

orange

backgroun

da

Exploding

bomb;

or

1.6 on

orange

backgrounda

[to be determined

];

or

1.4 on

orange

backgroun

da

Signal

word

Danger Danger Danger Danger Danger Danger Danger Warning

Hazard

statemen

t

[Sensitive

]

Explosive

Explosive Explosive Explosive Explosive Explosive Explosive Fire or

projection

[hazard]

a Applies to substances, mixtures and articles subject to some regulatory

purposes (e.g. transport).

[2.1.3.1 If available, the division assigned to an explosive according to the UN

Recommendations of the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Model Regulations, should

be indicated as supplemental information (see paragraph 1.4.6.3 of Chapter 1.4) on

the label of any package that is not labelled in accordance with those Model

Regulations. If the assigned division relates to the transport packaging or

153

configuration that should be indicated as “Division X as packaged/configured for

transport.” with X denoting the appropriate division number (e.g. 1.3).]

NOTE 2: Substances and mixtures with a positive result in Test Series 2 in

Part I, Section 12, of the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous

Goods, Manual of Tests and Criteria, which are exempted from classification as

explosives (based on a negative result in Test Series 6 in Part I, Section 16 of the

UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Manual of Tests and

Criteria,) still have explosive properties. The user should be informed of these

intrinsic explosive properties because they have to be considered for handling –

especially if the substance or mixture is removed from its packaging or is

repackaged – and for storage. For this reason, the explosive properties of the

substance or mixture should be communicated in Section 2 (Hazard identification)

and Section 9 (Physical and chemical properties) of the Safety Data Sheet in

accordance with Table 1.5.2, and other sections of the Safety Data Sheet, as

appropriate.

2.1.4 Decision logic and guidance

The decision logic and guidance, which follow, are not part of the harmonized

classification system, but have been provided here as additional guidance. It is

strongly recommended that the person responsible for classification studies the

criteria before and during use of the decision logic.

2.1.4.1 Decision logic

The classification of substances, mixtures and articles in the class of explosives and

further allocation to a division is a very complex, three step procedure. Reference to

Part I of the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Manual

of Tests and Criteria, is necessary. The first step is to ascertain whether the

substance or mixture has explosive effects (Test Series 1). The second step is the

acceptance procedure (Test Series 2 to 4) and the third step, applied for some

regulatory purposes only (e.g. transport), is the assignment to a hazard division (Test

Series 5 to 7). The assessment whether a candidate for “ammonium nitrate emulsion

or suspension or gel, intermediate for blasting explosives (ANE)” is insensitive

enough for inclusion classification as an oxidizing liquid (Chapter 2.13) or an

oxidizing solid (Chapter 2.14) is answered by Test Series 8 tests. The overall

classification procedure for substances, mixtures and articles is shown in Figure

2.1.1. For ammonium nitrate emulsions, suspensions and gels, the classification

procedure is shown in Figure 2.1.2.

2.1.4.2 Guidance

2.1.4.2.1 Explosive properties are associated with the presence of certain chemical

groups in a molecule which can react to produce very rapid increases in temperature

or pressure. The screening procedure is aimed at identifying the presence of such

reactive groups and the potential for rapid energy release. If the screening procedure

identifies the substance or mixture to be a potential explosive, the acceptance

procedure (see section 10.3 of the UN Recommendations on the Transport of

Dangerous Goods, Manual of Tests and Criteria) has to be performed.

NOTE: Neither a Series 1 type (a) propagation of detonation test nor a Series 2 type (a) test of sensitivity to detonative shock is required if the exothermic decomposition energy of organic materials is less than 800 J/g. For organic substances and mixtures of organic substances with a decomposition energy of 800 J/g or more, tests 1 (a) and 2 (a) need not be performed if the outcome of the ballistic mortar Mk.IIId test (F.1), or the ballistic mortar test (F.2) or the BAM Trauzl test (F.3) with initiation by a standard No.8 detonator (see Appendix

154

1 to the Manual of Tests and Criteria) is “no”. In this case, the results of test 1 (a) and 2 (a) are deemed to be “-”.

2.1.4.2.2 The acceptance procedure for the hazard class “explosives” need not be

applied if:

(a) There are no chemical groups associated with

explosive properties present in the molecule. Examples of

groups which may indicate explosive properties are given in

Table A6.1 in Appendix 6 of the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Manual of Tests and Criteria;

or

(b) The substance contains chemical groups

associated with explosive properties which include oxygen

and the calculated oxygen balance is less than -200.

The oxygen balance is calculated for the chemical reaction:

CxHyOz + [x + (y/4)-(z/2)] O2 x. CO2 + (y/2) H2O

using the formula:

oxygen balance = -1600 [2x +(y/2) -z]/molecular weight;

(c) For an organic substance, or a homogenous

mixture of organic substances, containing a chemical group

(or groups) associated with explosive properties:

– the exothermic decomposition energy is less

than 500 J/g, or

– the onset of exothermic decomposition is 500 ºC or

above

as indicated by Table 2.1.3.

Table 2.1.3: Decision to apply the acceptance procedure for the

hazard class “Explosives” for an organic substance or a homogenous

mixture

of organic substances

Decomposition

energy

(J/g)

Decomposition onset

temperature

(°C)

Apply acceptance

procedure?

(Yes/No)

< 500 < 500 No

< 500 ≥ 500 No

≥ 500 < 500 Yes

≥ 500 ≥ 500 No

The exothermic decomposition energy may be determined

using a suitable calorimetric technique (see section 20.3.3.3

of the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous

155

Goods, Manual of Tests and Criteria); or

(d) For mixtures of inorganic oxidizing substances

with organic material(s), the concentration of the inorganic

oxidizing substance is:

less than 15%, by mass, if the oxidizing substance is assigned

to Category 1 or 2;

less than 30%, by mass, if the oxidizing substance is assigned

to Category 3.

2.1.4.2.3 In the case of mixtures containing any known explosives, the

acceptance procedure has to be performed.

[2.1.4.2.4 For the purposes of risk management outside the scope of GHS,

explosives in configurations other than transport may be evaluated using risk

assessment procedures, which may include additional testing, to identify and

minimize risk in specific scenarios.]

156

Figure 2.1.1

* For ammonium nitrate emulsions, suspensions or gels, refer to Figure 2.1.2

157

Figure 2.1.2

158

Annex 2 – List of potential UN-numbers assigned to Sub-category 2B

Note that this list is based on the opinions of some experts in the

ICG, and is subject to further discussion.

UN-

number Description (shortened)*

Transport classification

Division Compatibility

Group

0012 Cartridges SA 1.4 S

0014 Cartridges Blanks 1.4 S

0044 Primers, cap type 1.4 S

0055 Cartridges cases 1.4 S

0066 Igniter cord 1.4 G

0070 Cable cutters 1.4 S

0105 Safety Fuse 1.4 S

0131 Fuse lighters 1.4 S

0173 Release devices 1.4 S

0174 Rivets 1.4 S

0191 Hand Signals 1.4 G

0197 Smoke Signals 1.4 G

0276 Power cartridges 1.4 C

0278 Oil well cartridges 1.4 C

0306 Tracers for ammunition 1.4 G

0312 Signal cartridges 1.4 G

0317 Fuses, igniting 1.4 G

0323 Cartridges, power device 1.4 S

0325 Igniters 1.4 G

0337 Fireworks 1.4 S

0338 Cartridges Blanks 1.4 C

0339 Cartridges SA 1.4 C

0345 Projectiles 1.4 S

0368 Igniting fuses 1.4 S

0373 Hand Signals 1.4 S

0379 Cases, cartridge empty with primer 1.4 C

0403 Aerial Flares 1.4 G

0404 Aerial Flares 1.4 S

0405 Signal Cartridges 1.4 S

0425 Projectiles, inert with tracer 1.4 G

0446 Cases, combustible, empty, without

primer

1.4 C

0454 Igniters 1.4 S

0503 Airbags 1.4 G

0505 Ship distress signals 1.4 G

0506 Ship distress signals 1.4 S

0507 Smoke Signals 1.4 S

0509 Smokeless Powder 1.4 C

0510 Rocket motors 1.4 C

* See the Dangerous Goods List in Chapter 3.2 of the UN Model

Regulations for the full description

159

Annex 3: Example GHS-labels for some Explosives.

Note that these examples are for illustration purposes only and may

not adhere to all aspects of the GHS or its implementations in various

jurisdictions.

162

参考資料 No.27

Comments on the report on the work of the informal

correspondence group on the revision of GHS Chapter

2.1 (UN/SCEGHS/32/INF.8 - UN/SCETDG/50/INF.11)

Transmitted by the expert from the United States of America

Introduction

1. This informal paper provides comments on the report submitted by the

informal correspondence group (ICG) addressing the revision of GHS Chapter 2.1

(informal documents INF.8 (32nd session, GHS) and INF.11 (50th session, TDG). The

expert from the United States of America would like to thank the delegate from

Sweden for his continued work and leadership of this issue and all the participants

for their contributions.

Background

2. At the twenty-ninth session of the Sub-Committee of Experts on

the Globally Harmonized System (GHS Sub-Committee), the expert

from Sweden agreed to lead the work on the revision of GHS Chapter

2.1. An ICG was formed for the task, which mainly consists of

members from the Working Group on Explosives (EWG) under the


(TDG Sub-Committee).

3. Since the ICG was formed in September 2015, the work has

UN/SCETDG/50/INF.18

UN/SCEGHS/32/INF.15



and Labelling of Chemicals 11 November 2016

Sub-Committee of Experts on the

Transport of Dangerous Goods







Issues related to the Globally Harmonized


Chemicals: Review of Chapter 2.1 of the

GHS




communication: Work of the Sub-Committee of

Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods

(TDG Sub-Committee) on matters of interest to

the GHS Sub-Committee

163

moved swiftly and dealt with a number of fundamental issues,

including “unstable” explosives and the particularities of the class of

explosives. One of the proposals currently under consideration is the

creation of a new explosives classification system to identify new

categories as a replacement for the current transport division system

in GHS. This represents a significant expansion of the original scope

of modifying hazard communication elements without changing the

existing classification system.

4. Representatives from several U.S. agencies have been involved in the

discussions on this chapter. The U.S. Agencies include the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration (OSHA), the Department of Transportation (DOT),

the Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board (DDESB), and the Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). DOT, DDESB, and ATF have

all actively participated in the Explosives Working Group discussions both in this

and other bienniums. For the U.S. to develop a unified positon on explosives, it

must rely on input from experts representing all of these affected agencies.

Timeline for the work

5. As originally conceived, the initiative to update GHS Chapter 2.1,

Explosives, was intended to be an iterative process (see paragraph 68 of the Report

of the GHS Sub-Committee on its 28th session (ST/SG/AC10/C4/56), and the

proposed work streams included addressing any gaps in Chapter 2.1 that might be

found (informal document INF.13 (29th session (GHS)). A draft revised chapter was

circulated for the first time to interested parties after the thirty-first session of the

GHS, which was the first time many United States experts saw the full proposal.

Our first review suggests that there are still gaps in the work and unintended

consequences that need to be identified and addressed in the new proposed chapter.

As no formal paper has been introduced for the chapter, the United States believes

that we are in the first iteration and needs time for internal discussions about how

the changes would affect all U.S. agencies regulating explosives, as well as affected

United States stakeholders.

6. The draft chapter that has been developed proposes major modifications and a

totally different approach for the classification and communication of this complex

and serious hazard. The United States believes that the scope of the original mandate

has been broadened and it would be premature to move ahead with the new

alternative approach without a thorough review by the entire GHS. In addition, the

United States expects that the regulatory impact of the proposed changes to GHS

Chapter 2.1 will be significant. Therefore, the United States recommends the scope

of the expanded work be redefined to include the purpose and application to the

various sectors. The United States also believes the work on GHS Chapter 2.1

should continue into the next biennium.

Concerns and proposed path forward

7. The draft revised GHS Chapter 2.1 provided by the informal correspondence

group identified a new classification and category system to replace the existing

system of transport divisions, which are not based on intrinsic hazards. While we

initially believe this new system has significant merit, the United States believes that

a substantial undertaking of this nature needs to be reviewed thoroughly to ensure

that intrinsic properties are prioritized, criteria for classification are properly

developed, and appropriate hazard communication elements are identified. The

164

United States notes several examples in the draft revised GHS Chapter 2.1 that

cause concern and, as noted above, recommends the work continue in the next

biennium to further develop the revised chapter:

• The draft revision to GHS Chapter 2.1 introduces a new classification system.

As such, the United States recommends experts be given the opportunity to

review and update the scope of the work for the informal correspondence

group, as needed. Some suggested scope topics include identifying the

purpose of the work on the chapter and how the application of a new

classification system may impact various sectors, including impacts to

manufacturing, storage, sale and use. In particular, the number of

classification categories and their criteria should be developed with

forethought to their use. The United States recommends that the categories

developed take into account potential packaging dependencies, and address

their link(s), if any, to transport classifications, which are often only valid in

the transport configuration in which they were evaluated.

• The impact on a variety of regulations and consensus standards that different

agencies administer to control all life cycle stages of explosives should be

anticipated once new classifications appear in the safety data sheet (SDS) and

addressed. For example, downstream impacts to local building and fire code

authorities having jurisdiction over occupied structures are expected and

should carefully be assessed. Local authorities normally do not have

expertise to classify explosives, and currently rely on transport classification

information provided on the Safety Data Sheet to trigger storage prohibitions

or quantity limits.

• The classification criteria proposed for hazard categories should be clearly

defined. In relation to the currently proposed category 2B, some concerns

have been raised with relying on a list-based approach to identify specific

hazard categories. While UN numbers allow capture of risk and what is

accepted in other sectors, the GHS does not normally use lists to classify

hazards.The United States supports a criteria-based approach to defining

category 2B, along with guidance that certain UN numbers, in certain

circumstances, might meet such criteria. In any event, a number of elements

should be considered, including the fact that some UN numbers containing

broad variations of hazard levels, transport classifications depend on the

exact packaging configuration to mitigate hazards, and that fire codes may

regulate products by name and not by UN number or a list.

• The proposed definition of category 2A appears to provide classification

criteria that first requires the classifier to determine whether the substance or

article is eligible for classification in category 2B (since mixtures are treated

the same as substances when dealing with explosives). This appears to be

contrary to the approach used when establishing classification criteria. In

addition, the draft chapter currently provides some of the classification

criteria in a footnote, which should be elevated into the main text.

• In the U.S., transport authorities, including the military, may classify

complex articles containing explosives plus other hazardous materials outside

the class of explosives, even though an explosive hazard may still exist in

excess of the allowances in the UN Model Regulations (UNMR) Chapter 2.1,

paragraph 2.1.3.6 and the corresponding GHS Chapter 2.1.1.2(b). We

believe such assignments are correct and properly executed classifications. In

the GHS, the general prohibition of any hazardous effect in 2.1, paragraph

2.1.1.2(b) is unintentionally stricter than the quantitative criteria it was based

on UNMR 2.1.3.6. These parallel texts should be revised concurrently to

provide additional clarity. Before this review occurs, the U.S. suggests the

GHS Sub-Committee decide if or how an intrinsic explosive hazard posed by

an explosive-containing article not classified as explosive should be treated

from a hazard communication perspective in sectors other than transport. For

example, should the label or SDS convey to downstream entities that an

165

explosive hazard is indeed present, even though the explosive hazard is not

the predominant hazard?

• Similar to the above point, some products are not classified as an explosive,

even though they may contain an explosive item. For example, automotive

airbags contain an explosive element; however, regulations and standards

that govern them are less restrictive or an alternative regulatory approach is

used so that airbags may be used as designed, since the public depends on

them for safety reasons. Other examples include hobby rocket motors,

consumer fireworks, indoor pyrotechnic articles, and road fusees. We

recommend that these exceptions be addressed as a whole.

• A note in proposed paragraph 2.1.4.2.2 in Chapter 2.1 has been identified as

a placeholder for a discussion on risk assessment. The United States agrees

that further guidance on risk assessment is needed, especially as to how it

applies to explosives outside GHS Chapter 2.1 and suggests this be further

developed and expanded.

8. Finally, the U.S. believes that the peculiarities of explosives should be kept in

mind during this work:

• The GHS is based on intrinsic hazards. Explosives classification is only

intrinsic for entering the class, while the transport divisions currently used by

GHS are not intrinsic, but based on (1) the degree of hazard as controlled by

quantity, form and packaging, and (2) the probability of initiation, i.e., risk.

Additional packaging can mitigate the hazard, and in transport Division 1.4

and 1.4S the hazard mitigation achieved by using additional packaging is

accompanied by less stringent controls.

• The GHS assumes self-classification. Under the current criteria, explosives

are only classified by competent authorities, case by case, using the UN

Manual of Tests and Criteria (UNMTC). Parts of the UNMTC are written

only for use by competent authorities with explosives expertise, and other use

in the current form could result in inconsistent classifications.

• Although the GHS does not require testing, testing is rigorously required for

explosives. Explosives must be tested both small-scale, and full-scale

empirically in their transport packaging. New testing is often required by the

competent authority for packaging or quantity changes of a previously

classified product. The number of tests are required, and controlled by a

guide - the UNMTC. Therefore, we recommend the informal correspondence

group’s work avoid introducing even more testing for explosives.

• The GHS places controls on untested mixtures to prevent dilution as an

escape from a class, with ingredient thresholds of 0.1% to 1.0% for many

classes. In contrast, explosives mixtures are evaluated for classification with

the same rigor as a substance. Small percentage changes that may not alter a

health classification can greatly reduce the explosives hazard.

• Most countries have dedicated explosives legislation, with strict regulatory

controls, whereas health hazards are treated differently. For example,

building codes do not limit the presence of carcinogens, but do place quantity

limits or prohibitions on explosives in a structure, commensurate with their

classification.

9. In addition, the U.S. believes that to support this new proposed system for

identifying explosive hazards, classification criteria should be properly assigned and

the procedure for their determination should be included in the UNMTC. As such,

the U.S. recommends that the work on the UNMTC should also be deferred until

after the work on GHS Chapter 2.1 is complete. This will allow time for the scope

and criteria to be properly established before the tests are assigned, and that other

major issues, such as the proposed explanation for articles in the GHS, to be

thoroughly compared to GHS parameters before any final decisions are made and

166

consensually approved. The U.S. has provided a companion paper about the

UNMTC to discuss this in more depth (See UN/SCEGHS/32/INF.14;

UN/SCETDG/50/INF.17).

10. At the thirty-first session, a working group of the GHS was held on this work

for the first time. The U.S. believes that this GHS working group should continue at

each meeting of the GHS during this project, and that the ICG led by the expert

from Sweden should be expanded to include those GHS experts who attend the

working group. This will enable the GHS to carefully assess the work and ensure

that GHS principles are applied and that any modifications of principle for this

unique class are developed appropriately.

Conclusions

11. The United States recommends the program of work for GHS Chapter 2.1,

Explosives, be reviewed and updated, as needed, and include a stepwise approach to

establish proper criteria for classification, before addressing hazard communication

elements. As part of this approach, a thorough review by all experts should be

provided to ensure that optimal criteria are developed, and the appropriate number

of categories and boundaries are established. The United States also recommends

continuing the work on Chapter 2.1 into the next biennium.

12. Since the UNMTC will describe the tests used to assign the new classifications

still under development in the draft revised Chapter 2.1, the United States also

recommends that the work on the UNMTC be deferred and continue into the next

biennium.

167

参考資料 No.28

2017 年 1 月 24 日

ISO/TC264 活動報告

産業技術総合研究所薄葉州、日本煙火協会畑中修二

はじめに

ISO/TC264 の WG2，4 第 5 回会議、WG5 第 1 回会議と第 5 回総会に参加したので、各会議

について時系列に報告する。いずれの会議も SIS (Swedish Standards Institute スウェ一デン標

準局）と MSB (Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency スウェーデン国民非常事態局)が主催し

た。9 月 20 日の会場は、会議案内にある MSB オフィスビル（Fleminggatan 14 SE-112 26

Stockholm)であり、ホテルから徒歩 10 分の場所であったが、同 21 日の会場は 20 日に地図で案

内があり変更された。会議場（Erstagatan 1K，116 91Stockholm) はホテルから徒歩約 1 時間

離れた風光明媚な場所であった。

1. ISO/TC264WG4 Test methods の会合

会期：2016 年 9 月 20 日 10 時〜12 時 30 分

議長：Mr. Pierre Thebault (AFNOR)

幹事：Jocelyn Loumeto (AFNOR)

国際幹事：Ms. Huang Chaxiang（SAC）参加者

：全 19 名（6 ヶ国と 1 リエゾン）

参加国：ドイツ（2）、フランス（4）、日本（2）、中国（7）、イスラエル（1）、スウ

ェーデン（2）、リエゾン（IFA）（1）

日本 (JISC) 代表：畑中修二（日本煙火協会）、薄葉州（産業技術総合研究

所）

1.1 挨拶 MBS 責任者、SIS NMC の議長 Mr.Erik Nilsson、コンビーナ Mr. Pierre

Thebault、及び幹事の交代案内と自己紹介があった。

1.2 前回議事録

ISO/TC 264/WG4 N61(第 4 回 WG4 Pretoria 会議のレポート）の説明と採択が行われ

た。日本の参加者数 2 名を 3 名に修正されたが、再度回覧はしないことになった。

1.3 規格出版の情報

ISO 25947-4 "Fireworks •• Categories 1，2 and 3 - Part 4: Test methods"

FDIS 段階をスキップする TC 決議に基づき、編集上のミスは修正のうえ出版される。

ISO 26261*3 " Fireworks - Category 4 •• Part 3: Test methods"

FDIS 段階をスキップする TC 決議に基づき出版される。

1.4 NWI「花火の禁止成分の試験方法」についての議論

1) NWI 投票の結果とコメント

WG4_N64 Test method of Prohibited Chemical Component for Fireworks- Collated

Comments from the NWI vote

WG4_N66 Test method of Prohibited Chemical Component for Fireworks -

Results of voting on NWIP

NWIP 投票結果の説明の後、フランスとドイツのコメントについて議論が行われた。

コンビーナは、フランスのコメントを支持すると述べた。フランスは、たとえば HCB について

は IS06468 があるのだから、現存する適切な規格を調査して花火への応用を議論すべきである

とした。ドイツは、これらの物質については既に規制されているので標準化の必要がないと述べ

た。スウェーデンはフランスを支持した。IFA はフランスの規格は飲料水に対する試験方法であ

り花火には複雑すぎコス卜がかかりすぎるし、物質の限界値ではなく、検出限界であるとした。

議論の後、コンビーナは次のような決議を得た。

168

決議：WG4 のエキスパートは、禁止化学物質の試験方法についての既存規格を 2016 年 12 月ま

でに提供する。HCB については Mr. Andrew TANG、鉛については Mr. Zola ZOU.

•これらの文書は、実現可能報告として 2017 年 1 月末までに回覧される。

これらの報告についての NMC コメントは同年 2 月末までに提出する。

すべての試験方法の原案は同年 3 月か 4 月に開催される会議中に検討修正される。

WG4 としては、同会議の後、「鉛の測定」と「HCB の測定」に関する NWIP について投票を

決議するように TC264 に依頼する。

2) NWIP についての AFNOR コメント

WG4_N68 AFNOR comments on proposed NWIPs on: Determination of Lead and

Determination of Hexachlorobenzene

フランスのエキスパー卜は、既存の使える ISO 規格が存在するから禁止化学物質の標準化には

反対であったが、他の国が認めるならフランスとしてはその作業に協力する用意があると述べ

た。

3) 概論（初回原案）

WG4_N62 PWI - Test method of prohibited chemical components for fireworks - General (1st

draft)

コンビーナは、提出された文書は詳細すぎ作業手順書や安全説明書のようだと述べた。ドイツ

や幹事からの意見の後、次の決議を得た。

決議：文書 N62 は次の会議まで修正せずに残す。別の調査の結果をもって、3 月の会議中に原

案を修正する 3

4) 鉛の測定

WG4_N65 PWI - Testing of Prohibited Chemical Components for Fireworks Determination of

Lead - Flame atomic absorption spectrophotometer method

先に述べた報告書にしたがって改善するので本文書は議論しない。

5) ヘキサクロロベンゼンの測定

WG4_N63 PWI - Test method of Prohibited Chemical Components for Fireworks -

Determination of Hexachlorobenzene (1st Draft)

先に述べた報告書にしたがって改善するので本文書は議論しない。

1.5 推奨の採択

コンビーナは、総会に WG4 の報告を行い、2017 年 3 月か 4 月に開催される会議は AFNOR

がパリに招待することを提案する。

1.6 第 6 回会議の予定: 総会で議論し、他の WG に合わせて決める。

1.7 閉会

2. 1SO/TC264WG5 Firework Display の会合

会期：2016 年 9 月 20 日 13 時 30 分〜16 時

議長：Mr. Zhu Yuping（SAC）

幹事：Ms. Tang Jiolin（SAC）

国際幹事：Ms. Huang Chaxiang（SAC）

参加者：全 19 名(6 ヶ国と 1 リエゾン)



日本 (JISC) 代表：畑中修二（日本煙火協会）、薄葉州（産業技術総合研究所）

2.1 コンビーナの挨拶

2.2 プロジェクトリ一ダ一の任命

169

NWIP 投票の結果、Mr. Deng Xiogqun が任命された。プロジェクトリーダー代理 Mr. Li

Zhendang が自分の会社と「花火の打揚げ- 一般指針」を簡単に紹介した。

2.3 NWIP「花火の打揚げ一一般指針」についての議論

WG5_N07 NP 21583 Form06 Result of voting on NWIP

WG5_N08 NWIP ballot for Firework Displays-General Guidance - Collated Comments

WG5_N09 Result of CIB ballot for creating a new WG WG5_N12 Discussion results of

NWIP ballot collated comments

投票結果とスペイン、ドイツ、イギリスとインドの追加コメントについて議論し合意を

N12 に記入した。

ドイツは、EU が定めるカテゴリ 4 の花火に対する最小安全距離をプレゼンし、指針にある

安全距離はこのブレゼン内容を参照すべきと述べた。

日本を含め投票時の Q.1 に対するコメン卜は検討されなかった。

代表は、各国の大きさと質量の制限、カテゴリ、安全距離、花火の種類の制限、貯蔵量の制

限などを含めた花火の打ち揚げに関する有益な情報を収集するようにブロジェク卜リーダー

に求めた。(日本も県別に消費基準が異なることを情報提供するか）

2.4 次回会議予定：総会で議論し、他の WG に合わせて決める。

2.5 推奨の採択なし

2.6 閉会

3. ISO/TC264WG2 Safety requirement and labeling の会合

会期：2016 年 9 月 21 日 9 時〜11 時

議長：Dr. Christian Lohrer (BAM)

幹事：Mr. Yavuz Anik (DIN)


参加者：全 24 名（6 ヶ国と 1 リエゾン）




3.1 コンビーナの任命と出席者の自己紹介

3.2 前回議事録の確認 .

WG2- N90 (第 4 回 WG2 会議のレポート）が説明され変更なしで採択された。

3.3 規格出版の情報

ISO 25947-3 "Fireworks •• Categories 1，2 and 3 •• Part 3: Minimum labelling

requirements"

FDIS 段階をスキップする投票結果に基づき、文書 WG2_N109 に記載のある編集上のミス

は修正のうえ出版される。

日本のコメントは、カテゴリに深く関わる安全距離についてのコメントであり DIS 段階で

は受け入れられないが、次の改定では検討できる。

ISO 25947-5 "Fireworks •• Categories 1，2 and 3 •• Part 5: Requirements for

construction and performance"

FDIS 段階をスキップする投票結果に基づき出版される。

ISO 26261-2 "Fireworks - Category 4 - Part 2: Requirements"


ISO 26261-4 ”Fireworks •• Category 4 •• Part 4: Minimum labelling requirements and

instructions for use"


3.4 技術的議論と次の手順についての議論

WG2_N103 Result of voting on NWIP

WG2_N115 Collated comments with secretary observations on ISO/DTR 21865 "Third Party

170

Testing — Voluntary Scheme"

WG2_N113 To be ISO/DTR 21865 "Third party testing • Voluntary scheme" WITH TRACK

CHANGES as agreed on 2016-09*21 WG2_N114 To be ISO/DTR 21865 "Third

party testing - Voluntary scheme" as agreed on 5th Meeting of ISO/TC 264/WG

2 in Stockholm on 2016-09.21

NWIP 投票結果と追加コメントについて次のように議論が行われた。

1) スウェーデン、CASCO、ISO/CS コメントが検討され、大多数を承認して修正された。

2) パッチ試験を第三者機関のみで行うことに対する日本のコメントに対しては、十分議論した

うえで能力のある組織であればという条件は付いたが承認された。

(WG2 の推奨事項 02/2016)

3.5 推奨の採択

Dr.Christian Lohrer をコンビーナに任命する推奨 01/2016 と、技術報告書 ISO/TR21865

原案についての推奨 02/2016 が決議された。P メンバーとリエゾンに DTR 照会する文書に

進める。

3.6 次回会議予定：次回の会議予定はない。

3.7 閉会

4. ISO/TC264 第 5 回総会

会期：2016 年 9 月 21 日 11 時〜15 時（集合写真と昼食を含む）

議長：Mr. Tang Aixi (SAC)

幹事：Ms. Jiaolin Tang


参加者：全 26 名（6 ヶ国とリエゾン）




4.1 議長の挨拶，出席者の自己紹介，議題の採択議長として Mr.Tang Aixi が自己紹介した。

4.2 原案委員の任命

本会議の推奨事項の原案委員として、Mr. Yavuk Anik (DIN)と Mr. Joceyn Loumeto

（CAFNOR）に議長が依頼した。

4.3 国際幹事からの報告

概論国際幹事の報告があった（ISO/TC264_N160)

第 4 回総会の議事録の承認昨年の総会議事録は変更なく承認された。

4.4 各 WG からの報告

WG4 コンビーナは WG4 の作業状況を説明した。

WG5 コンビーナは WG5 の作業状況を説明した。

WG2 代表は Dr. Christian Lohrer を新コンビーナに任命することに同意した。（決議

4)

コンビーナは WG2 の作業状況を説明した。WG2 のコンビ一ナであった Dr.

Dietrich Eckhardt に感謝の意を表す。（決議 5)

WG1 の廃止代表は WG1 の廃止に同意した。（決議 6)

WG3 の廃止代表は WG1 の廃止に同意した。（決議 7)

4.5 各作業項目の状況と行動 •9 つのプロジェク卜の状況を幹事が説明した。

ISO/AWI 21583 花火の打揚げ - 一般指針

ISO/AWI 21584 花火の禁止化学成分の試験方法

ISO/IEC 指針第 1 部統合 ISO 補完に合致していないので、ISO/AW I21584 を中止す

る決意を示した。3 つの文書を別々に投票することが求められる。

ISO/TR 21585 第三者試験一ボランタリースキーム原案を作成して ISO/DTR21865 を

171

投票にかける。（決議 9)

4.6 ビジネスプラン

国際幹事からビジネスプランの説明があり、輸送と貯蔵にかかる日本からの意見によって修

正があった。修正されたビジネスプランは TC264 会員に配布され投票される。

4.7 次回会議

WG4 と WG5 の日程は、2017 年 3 月 28 日〜29 日に開催することに出席エキスパー

トは合意した。

次回の WG と総会日程は、2017 年 10 月 17 日〜19 日、杭州（中国）で開催する予定

とした後、杭州が紹介された。

4.8 決議の承認

すべての決議は全員一致で同意された。（TC264_N163)

4.9 閉会

以上

172

付録資料１

IGUS ENERGETIC AND OXIDISING SUBSTANCES WORKING GROUP 報告

Basel, Switzerland, April 11 - 12, 2016 東京大学新井充

1. Opening 1.1 Welcome by the chairman

議長 Klaus-Dieter Wehrstedt からの歓迎の挨拶

1.2 Welcome on behalf of Swiss Process Safety GmbH

Swiss Process Safety GmbH を代表して、Martin Sutter 理事からの挨拶

2. Agenda

予めメールにて配布されていた agenda につき、微修正を加えて承認された。

3. Previous Meeting 3.1 Introduction, Minutes, Actions (publication etc.), EOS Work Plan

前回 WG (6-8 May in Ottawa) の議事録（minute）は、2015/9/11 に配布済み。

＊ 2015 年の WG で承認された計画

1) 有機過酸化物定義ための貯蔵グループの WG 開始する（BAM 2015 秋）

2) UN Test N.1 の試験法詳細を consilab 社の Jorn Horn に送付する

3) 酸化剤 WG を再度立上げる（K.-D. Wehrstedt, J. Clemens）

EOS Work Plan についての討議は無し。

特別作業部会の現状

（１）密閉圧力容器試験：部会長不在

（２）有機過酸化物の燃速試験：K. D. Wehrstedt(BAM)

2015 Frankfurt にて、活動再開決定

（３） Energetic substances の分類： J. Horn (consilab 社)活動中

（４）有機過酸化物と反応性物質の緊急排気：部会長不在

（５）固体酸化剤の試験：J. Clemens (Ineris) 2015/10/07Frankfurt にて WG 開催

（６）硝安系肥料の分類：W.A. Mak(TNO) 2016/03/03 Berlin にて WG 開催

（７） Test series H の見直し：M. Krack 2016/02/23 Frankfurt にて WG 開催

3.2 Frankfurt 特別会議（2015）報告

Jorg Horn から、昨年の Frankfurt での特別 WG について簡単な報告があった。

4. OXIDIZERS 4.1 UN O.3 history and other issues, J. Clemens

酸化剤の試験方法のラウンドロビンテストの紹介と説明、また、最新のラウンドロビンの結果

および現状の問題点についての報告。

4.2 RRT O.2/O.3 – results of BAM, M. Malow (BAM)

BAMにおけるラウンドロビンテストと粉末濾紙の代替についての検討結果、および、数種類

の粉末濾紙の顕微鏡による組織観察結果の報告。Technocel 75（粉末濾紙）が有望？ Wattman

社に、粉末濾紙の性状について問い合わせるべきとの指摘があった。

4.3 UN RRT UN O.2 and UN O.3 Draft Report, D.Carson on behalf of C. Michot

InerisにおけるO.2, O.3のラウンドロビンテスト結果の説明。

Celluloseについての詳細な検討（特に、化学的性質より生物材料としての性質に注目した）の

ほうが重要との指摘があった他、セルロースに代えてグルコースを試すべきではないかとの指摘

もあった。発表者は、ショ糖については経験があるが、良い結果を得ていないとのこと。

4.4 UN RRT UN O.2 and O.3 SCETDG 49 Draft INF, D.Carson on behalf of C. Michot

173

酸化剤のラウンドロビンテストに関するINFペーパーの説明

4.5 Update on HSE oxidiser project, A. Martínez

HSEおよびHSLにおける、Oxidizer Projectの進捗状況報告。1st phaseは終了し、2nd phaseを

継続中とのこと。但し、ここでの実験の考え方は、英国（独自）の規則に基づくもので、欧州の

ものとは馴染まないため、多くの質問とダメ出しがあった。

5. TEST METHOD 5.1 Replacement of DBP in Koenen Test, D. Carson on behalf of C. Michot

ケーネン試験の標準物質としてのDBP代替物質探索に関するラウンドロビン試験結果報告。植

物油による代替は好ましくない結果だったが、中国製のシリコンオイル（Bluestar oil）は良い結

果を得たとのこと。この報告については、IGUSメンバーに確認すること無くUNペーパーとして

提出されていることから、メンバーからの反発が激しかった。

5.2 Report of the ad hoc working group “Revision of series H”, Maren Krack

test series H の見直しに関する特別WG の活動報告

5.3 Update test series H UN Manual of tests and criteria, Peter Schuurman

test series H の見直しの更新についての概要説明

5.4 Screening procedures related to SADT, Markus Gödde

appendix 6のレビューについての概要説明

5.2, 5.3, 5.4 については、全てtest series Hに関するものであるため、まとめて討議された。

GHSとの関係についての質問があったが、今回は対象外、次のステップで考えるとのこと。

5.5 Use of a differential-type adiabatic calorimeter for evaluating thermal hazards of reactive materials, Yoshihiko Sato

DARCを使用した反応性化学物質の熱危険性評価方法についての説明

5.6 New Test for Detection of Influence of Thermal Aging on SADT value, Bertrand Roduit

SADTに与える熱的エージングの影響を確認するための新たな試験方法に関する報告

DSCを使用したこの手法について、スクリーニングとしての利用にとどめるようにとの指摘が

あった。

5.7 Looking at small closed crucibles as chemical reactors in DSC experiments, D. Carson

DSCを反応容器として使う方法についての説明。

密封セルを用いる場合には、セルの内容量により、気体／液体比率が変化することに注意すべ

きとの指摘があった他、この手法が、DSCよりも大きなサイズの反応熱量計においての適用可能

性に関する質問があった。

5.8 Detonators Specified in UN Handbook: Sourcing and Need for Specific Types, Stephen Puttick

トラウズル試験に使用される雷管の仕様と入手方法の問題点についての報告

同様の問題を実感しているという発言の他、全ての試験に共通する標準雷管の使用提案がUN

ペーパーとして、独から出されているとの情報があった。

6. ORGANIC PEROXIDES/ SELF-REACTIVE SUBSTANCES/ ENERGETIC MATERIALS 6.1 Bronopol – results of testing and assessment in consideration of UN TDG classification, Dieter Heitkamp

Bonopolの危険物分類に関する話題をレビュー

1980年代にBronopolの熱暴走による事故例があったとの指摘があった。

6.2 The classification of cycloserine, Xiao Qiuping

cycloserine の分類判定試験における、実験データの報告

この物質の分類には、不純物として含まれる鉄分が極めて重要であることが指摘された。

6.3 Fireballs of organic peroxides – a worst case scenario? Klaus-Dieter Wehrstedt

BAMにおける、有機過酸化物のファイアーボール効果についての実験結果に関する報告

限られた有機過酸化物での実験結果なので、今後、他の有機過酸化物についても実験を計画中

とのこと。

6.4 Temperature evolution inside a dry-box in hot climate: Effect of insulation, Phillipe Maj

174

高温雰囲気下での有機過酸化物包装の断熱材の効果について

TNOおよびAkzoが以前行った同種の実験結果と比較すべきであるとの指摘があった。

6.5 Transport of energetic samples, Dieter Heitkamp

小サンプルサイズの輸送パッケージの進捗状況報告

TNT当量を基準とすることの問題点が指摘された。また、米国では、PETN当量25gまでは、

頑丈な容器で運搬可とのこと。

6.6 Peroxides in Isopropanol – scope and limits of detection, Jan Georg Peters

種々の溶媒中でのTATPの試験紙による検知限界についての報告

濃度が高すぎて検知不可になっている可能性、環状有機過酸化物故の検知の問題等が指摘され

た。

6.7 Test of peroxyacetic acid formulation in the 10 L vessel, Haike Michael-Schulz

BAMにおける、過酢酸のベントサイジング試験について、予想外の圧力上昇により容器が破

裂したとの報告。

TDGにおける該容器の記述は、本質的に不安全で修正すべきとの指摘が為された。

6.8 Update Organic Peroxide storage Regulations: Status & ongoing activities?, Peter Schuurman

欧州における有機過酸化物の貯蔵規則の見直しの進捗状況報告

6.9 Use of heat production at one temperature for the screening of self-reactives, Wim Mak

自己反応性物質の分類に、TAMによる等温測定（測定温度1点のみ）でスクリーニングする方

法についての報告。

6.10 Polymerizing substances, Dieter Heitkamp

臨界温度と臨界圧力により、重合物質から一部を除外する方法についての説明。

重合物質については、自己反応性物質のようにフローチャートで分類するのには適していない

との指摘があった。

7. AMMONIUM NITRATE, FERTILIZERS 7.1 Progress report from the ad hoc WG on AN, Wim Mak

硝安の分類に関する特別WGの活動進捗状況および、新たにWGで開発した、硝安肥料の分類

に関するフローチャートの紹介。内容は、スウェーデンからUNに文章で提出済み。後日、EPP

とのジョイントミーティングでも討論される予定。

7.2 Contaminant-induced enhanced explosion hazard of ammonium nitrate: a focus on urea, elemental sulphur and DMPP, Douglas Carson on behalf of G. Marlair

硝安の汚染による爆発危険性増大に関する報告

ここで報告された汚染物質の幾つかは、現在のUN書類にも既に名前が上がっている。

8. CLASSIFICATION and any other business (all other substances and mixtures) 8.1 Presentation of Dangerous Goods Testing Laboratory (IPO) in Warsaw, Paulina Flasińska

危険物試験研究所（ワルシャワ、ポーランド）の紹介

9. UN SUB-COMMITTEES (TDG and GHS) 9.1 UN paper N.1, Haike Michael-Schulz

UN test N.1 に関するUN Paper（既提出）についての説明

10. INCIDENTS/ ACCIDENTS 10.1 2015 Tianjin explosions, Klaus-Diter Wehrstedt et al.

2015年の天津、中華人民共和国での爆発事故の概要説明

10.2 Explosion of ammonium nitrate at Angellala Creek on 5 Sep 2014, Noel Erichsen

2014年9月5日にオーストラリア、Angellala Creekで起きた硝安輸送車の爆発事故の概要説明

＊Lorens から、2015年に自身が報告したノルウェイでの同様な事故の報告書のURLの紹介があ

った。但し、現在下記リンクは無効。

http://www.dsb.no/Global/Publikasjoner/2015/Rapport/Explosion_Accident_during_Mobile_Production_of_Bulk_Explosives.pdf)

http://www.dsb.no/Global/Publikasjoner/2015/Rapport/Explosion_Accident_during_Mobile_Production_of_Bulk_Explosives.pdf

http://www.dsb.no/Global/Publikasjoner/2015/Rapport/Explosion_Accident_during_Mobile_Production_of_Bulk_Explosives.pdf

175

11. NEXT MEETING/ VALEDICTORY

2017年4月24-26日, TNO, オランダの予定

12. References 1) 2015 EOS WG minute 2) 2016 EOS agenda 3) 2016 EOS WG minute

176

付録資料２

2016/07/27

IGUS-EPP 2016 会議報告

国立研究開発法人産業技術総合研究所

薄葉州

1. 会議の概要

名称：IGUS-EPP

主催：IGUS-EPP WG 及びスイス連邦警察

期日：2016 年 4 月 14 及び 15 日

場所：Hotel Ambassador & SPA（ベルン・スイス）

議長：E. de Jong（オランダ TNO）

副議長：J. Arpin（カナダ天然資源省）

発表は全 24 件で、分野としては事故報告 3 件、試験法関連 2 件、分類関連 2 件、

TDG/GHS 提案文書関連 10 件、その他 7 件。

国別では米国 6 件、中国 5 件、スウェーデン 4 件、ドイツ及び日本が各 2 件、オ

ーストラリア、オランダ、カナダ、スイス、フランスが各 1 件。

参加登録者は 61 名で、国籍は米国 14 名、中国 12 名、チリ 5 名、英国及び南アフ

リカが各 4 名、オーストラリア、スペイン、スウェーデン、日本が各 3 名、カナ

ダ及びスイスが各 2 名、アイルランド、オランダ、ドイツ、ノルウェー、ペルー

及び香港が各 1 名。なお日本からの参加者は新井（東京大学）、佐藤（労働安全

衛生総合研究所、JNIOSH）及び薄葉（産業技術総合研究所、AIST）。

2．主な発表内容（TDG/GHS 提案文書の議論を除く）

2-1 火薬類ユーザーグループの Test Method Matrix の更新 by Robert T. Ford（米国、

SMS）

SMS が運営する会員制火薬試験ユーザーグループ（ETUG: Explosives Testing

Users’ Group）と、同グループが整備を進める Test Method Matrix の最新状況が紹介

された。Test Method Matrix は火薬類製造及び国連分類試験の技術基準を明確化し、グル

ープ間の技術的議論を促進することを目的としており、具体的には国連分類試験結果の典

型例や写真データの蓄積が行われている。本報告では ETUG 活動の最近の成果として、火

薬製造時の安全性分類試験についての取り組みが紹介された。これは TDG 勧告のスコー

プから離れるが、今後重要になる分野として位置づけられる。これらの情報は WEB サイ

ト： www.etusersgroup.org で入手可能である。

2-2 国連 6(c)試験（ボンファイヤー）に関する提案 by Jon Toreheim（スウェーデン、

Bofors）

177

現在の国連 6(c) 試験（ボンファイヤー）と NATO 版ボンファイヤー試験

（STANAG4240）を同時に満足する試験方法としては、液体燃料の火炎を用いる方法が

ある。しかし液体燃料は環境汚染や劣悪な作業環境が問題である。そこで Bofors 社ではガ

スを用いる実験方法（AOP-4240）を開発中であり、キャリブレーションの結果から国連

試験と NATO 試験の両方に対応可能なことが立証された。

この発表に対しては、現行の 6(c)試験で許される木製燃料は、温度の立ち上がりが遅い

という問題があり、また熱流束の計算も難しいので、本方式に期待するコメントがあっ

た。

2-3 製造時の火薬類の危険性分類 by Kirt Sasser（米国、SMS）

最近の GHS 2.1 章の見直しに伴い、火薬類の輸送以外の危険性分類について関心が高ま

りつつある。SMS 社はすでに 2002 年の時点で「製造時の火薬類の危険性分類」に関する

文書を作成しており、これは 2003 年に国際防火基準（International Fire Code）の引用

文書として採用されている。更に、そのための試験法が、SMS が運営する会員制火薬試験

ユーザーグループによって継続して検討されている。

輸送以外の火薬類に対する試験法は、リスク評価を目的としたもので、火薬類物質及び

物品に対してそれぞれ、感度試験（打撃感度、摩擦感度、静電気感度、熱衝撃感度など）

及び反応性試験（爆発性、火炎や衝撃に対する感度、製造時の形態における危険性など）

の評価を行うものである。

分類方法については TDG 分類に類似した IP1.1 から IP1.6 の六種類が検討されてい

る。

2-4 岩石破砕器の分類 by Jurie van Srtaden （南アフリカ警察、SAPS）

本発表は、岩石破砕に用いられる物品の分類の妥当性についての問い合わせである。南

アフリカで流通している岩石破砕器は、終端を閉じたプラスチック筒に、硝安と無煙火薬

の混合物 30 – 220 g を点火具とともに詰めたもので、非爆轟性である。国連試験の結果

1.4S と分類されたので、「UN0323 CARTRIDGES, POWER DEVICE、1.4S」、「UN0432

ARTICLES, PYROTECHNIC for technical purposes 、 1.4S 」又は「 UN0349

ARTICLES, EXPLOSIVE,NOS、1.4S 」が該当するが、どの正式輸送品名も本物品に正

確に適合しないので、新たな国連番号を作る必要があるのではとの疑問が呈された。これ

に対して、欧州指令及び米国では UN 0432 が割り当てられているとのコメントがあった

（ちなみに日本では、現在はテルミット反応を利用する非火薬製品のみが製造されてい

る）。

2-5 安全導火線（Safety Fuse）の爆発 by Shulin Nie（スウェーデン、市民緊急事態庁

MSB）

屋内で煙玉を作ろうとしていたところ、安全導火線の 90 m 巻線（Visco safety fuse、燃

焼速度 80 秒/m、薬量 1 g / m× 90 m= 90 g）が爆発的に燃焼し、部屋の壁が抜けるなど

の被害が発生した。そこで再現実験を行ったところ、表面塗装の有無にかかわらず、複数

本を束ねた状態の安全導火線は、本来の燃焼と異なる爆発的な燃焼をすることが分かっ

た。これらの物品の分類は元来 UN0105 FUSE, SAFETY 1.4S が割り当てられてきたが、

今回の事故を勘案し、UN0101 FUSE, NON-DETONATING 1.3G の割り当ても検討すべ

きであろう。

2-6 多結晶シリコン製造工場における爆発事故 by 佐藤嘉彦（日本、JNIOSH）

2014 年 1 月 9 日に、三重県四日市市の高純度多結晶シリコン製造工場で爆発事故が発

178

生し、死者 5 人、負傷者 13 人の被害が出た。水素ガス精製に使われる水冷式熱交換器を

メンテナンスするため交換機のカバーを外した際に爆発し、カバー飛散等の現象によって

人的被害が発生した。熱交換器内に蓄積した塩化ケイ素ポリマーは、冷却過程の加水分解

によって、TNT 等量 13-28％、かつ高い打撃感度及び摩擦感度を示す物質を生成すること

が判明した。よって事故原因としては、冷却装置のメンテナンス作業時の何らかの機械的

衝撃によって、この分解生成物が爆発したと結論された。

2-7 火薬類取締法の改正に向けた火薬類保安実験の最近の状況 by 薄葉州（日本、

AIST）

平成 27 年 9 月に北海道陸上自衛隊矢臼別演習場で実施された火薬類保安技術実験の概

要を写真と動画等で説明した。内容としては、1)保安距離見直しのための TNT 換算量測

定の結果、TNT、ANFO、含水爆薬のインパルス比較データが得られたので、現在解析中

であること、2)土提性能に及ぼす災害ダメージの効果に関する実験を行い、片側垂直土提

について、飛散物分布に有意な差が見られたことの 2 点である。この発表に対して、米国

では、インパルスの比較を行うと TNT 換算率が距離によってばらつく傾向が経験されて

いるなどのコメントがあった。

2-8 希釈され非火薬化されたアンモニウムジニトラミド（ADN）含有廃棄物の安全性確

認方法 by Shulin Nie（スウェーデン、市民緊急事態庁 MSB）

本発表では、AND が含まれた廃棄物を希釈して非火薬化されたものに対し、TDG モデル

規制をいかに適用するべきか疑問が呈されている。すなわち、

モデル規制 2.1.3.6.3 に「非火薬とみなすことができる最大濃度」を可能な限り示

すことが求められているが、どのように決定すべきか？；

試験マニュアル 32.3.2.3 に「十分に希釈されたものは危険物ではない」との記述

があるが、何をもって十分に希釈されたと判断するのか？試験シリーズ２による

のか？

これに対して、

シリーズ 2 試験を行うべき。6(c)のボンファイヤー試験は希釈剤が蒸発するので適

切ではない。

新規物質と見なしてシリーズ 2 試験を行うべき。

GHS の鈍感化爆薬の熱分析試験（300 J/g）を行うことができる。

シリーズ２のケーネン試験ではプラスになる可能性が高い。

等のコメントがあった。

2-9 ニトロセルロース及びニトロセルロース/ニトログリセリン混合物の熱分解 by Sam

Maach（カナダ CERL）

ニトロセルロース（NC）及びニトロセルロース/ニトログリセリン（NG）混合物の熱分

解過程のデータを解析し、任意の温度条件における貯蔵寿命を予測する実験式を導出する

試みが行われている。用いられたデータは、NC に関しては Kotoyori 等の緩慢な着火過程

データ、NC 及び NC/NG 混合物に対する Shteinberg 等の急峻な着火過程データ、及び

CERL 独自の ARC による計測データである。研究はまだ途中であるが、様々な温度にお

ける着火導入時間のデータが蓄積され、これらを基に、温度を変数とした着火導入時間の

実験式が作られつつある。

2-10 中国の産業爆薬関連の状況について by XIAO Chunquan 及び GANG Cui（中華人

民共和国、工業情報化部、MIIT）

以下の発表があった。

179

産業爆薬の安全評価とリスク管理方法

中国の産業爆薬業界の方向性

産業爆薬及びブースターの安全性評価とリスク管理

エマルション混合物の安定性評価法の提案

3 次回の予定

場所：中国西安

期日：2017 年 4 月 10-14 日

以上

平成 28 年度火薬類国際化対策事業報告書平成28年度 経済産業省委託事業...

Documents

平成 28 年度火薬類国際化対策事業報告書平成28年度経済産業省委託事業...