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...
Post on 01-Oct-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
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。
※2 ISO/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 ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
1 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 12 12 12
12 12 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 18
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
番号 文書番号 提案国等 文書標題 対応 備考・結果
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
番号 文書番号 提案国等 文書標題 対応 備考・結果
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
番号 文書番号 提案国等 文書標題 対応 備考・結果
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)
② 提案等の概要
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[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)
② 提案等の概要
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。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)
② 提案等の概要
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)
② 提案等の概要
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。
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)
② 提案等の概要
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)
② 提案等の概要
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。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)
② 提案等の概要
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)
② 提案等の概要
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)
② 提案等の概要
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.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)
② 提案等の概要
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。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)
② 提案等の概要
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
(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 :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
(スイス・ジュネーブ)
(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。
(4) 個別案件の審議結果
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)
② 提案等の概要
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)
② 提案等の概要
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)
② 提案等の概要
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。
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)
② 提案等の概要
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。
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)
② 提案等の概要
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。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)
② 提案等の概要
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)
② 提案等の概要
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。
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
(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 :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
(2) 開催期日及び場所:2016 年(平成 28年)7月 5日~7 月 8日
(スイス・ジュネーブ)
(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。
(4) 個別案件の審議結果
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
(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 :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
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
(スイス・ジュネーブ)
(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。
(4) 個別案件の審議結果
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)
② 提案等の概要
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。
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
Section 12.5.1.2.1 – 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.
Section 18.6.1.2.1 – 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.
Section 25.4.1.2.1 – 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.
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 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
(60/40) Bursting 2.80
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
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
Composition (mass %)
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
Potassium perchlorate/Potassium
hydrogen terephthalate /Titanium
(62/25/13)
Aural
(whistle) Pierced
Flash
composition
Potassium perchlorate/Aluminium
(P2000)/Aluminium (P50) (53/16/31) Waterfall Pierced
Flash
composition
Potassium perchlorate/Aluminium
(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 (60/40)
Bursting 17.7
Flash
composition
35
Composition (mass %)
Use or
effect
Observation of witness plate or
averaged depth of indentation (mm) Result
Potassium perchlorate/Charcoal (50/50)
Bursting 6.7
Not flash
composition
Potassium perchlorate/Potassium
nitrate /Charcoal (53/26/21) Bursting Torn
Flash
composition
Potassium perchlorate/Potassium
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
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
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
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
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
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
2 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.3/2016/10
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
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
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
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.
3 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.3/2016/13
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
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
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
4 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.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
Secretariat Distr.: General 6 April 2016 Original: English
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
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
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)
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
5 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,
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/60, annex III and ST/SG/AC.10/42, para. 15).
United Nations ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/47−ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2016/10
Secretariat Distr.: General 15 April 2016 Original: English
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
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
Forty-ninth session
Geneva, 27 June – 6 July 2016
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.
6 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.3/2016/18
Secretariat Distr.: General 1 April 2016 Original: English
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
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
Forty-ninth session
Geneva, 27 June – 6 July 2016
Item 2 (i) of the provisional agenda
Explosives and related matters: miscellaneous
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.
United Nations ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/19
Secretariat Distr.: General 1 April 2016 Original: English
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
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
Forty-ninth session Geneva, 27 June – 6 July 2016
Item 2 (i) of the provisional agenda
Explosives and related matters: miscellaneous
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
9 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.3/2016/29
Secretariat Distr.: General 15 April 2016 Original: English
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.
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;
• Delete Special provision 193;
• 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
Not accepted for transport
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
Does it contain >0,4%
combustible substances,
including any organic
substance calculated as
carbon? (See 39.3.5)
YES
Not accepted for
transport under UN2067.
(See 39.4.3)
13 NO NO NO
14Does it contain >5%
ammonium sulphate? (See
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
transport under UN2067.
(See 39.4.3)
17
18Does it contain ≥45%
ammonium nitrate?YES
Does it contain >0,4%
combustible substances,
including any organic
substance calculated as
carbon? (See 39.3.5)
YES
Not accepted for
transport under UN2067.
(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
Accepted for transport
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
Does it contain >0,4%
combustible substances,
including any organic
substance calculated as
carbon? (See 39.3.5)
YES
Not accepted for transport
under UN2067. (See
39.4.3)
35 NO NO
36Does it contain >5%
ammonium sulphate? (See
39.4.6)
YES
Not accepted for transport
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
Does it contain >0,4%
combustible substances,
including any organic
substance calculated as
carbon? (See 39.3.5)
YES
Not accepted for transport
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
Accepted for transport
under UN2067. (See
39.4.2 and 39.4.5)
45 NO
46Not subject to these
regulations
70
参考資料 No.13
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
Forty-ninth session
Geneva, 27 June – 6 July 2016
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
12 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.3/2016/31
Secretariat Distr.: General 7 April 2016 Original: English
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
Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods
and on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification
and Labelling of Chemicals
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
Secretariat Distr.: General 7 April 2016 Original: English
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 10 (i) of the provisional agenda
Issues relating to the Globally Harmonized
System of
Classification and Labelling of Chemicals:
miscellaneous
Geneva, 5-8 July 2016
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:
2.17.2 Classification criteria
2.17.2.1 Any explosive which is desensitized shall be
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
(b) It has a mass explosion hazard according to
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.
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).
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
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 16 June 2016
Forty-ninth session
Geneva, 27 June – 6 July 2016
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
and on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification
and Labelling of Chemicals
Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods 30 June 2016
Forty-ninth session
Geneva, 27 June – 6 July 2016
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
(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 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)
7. NGO 機関(全 36 機関):
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).
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)
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
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 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
calculated as ammonium nitrate.
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 Classification procedure
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
39.4.3 Ammonium nitrate based fertilizers that do not fulfil the requirements for
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.
39.4.5 Ammonium nitrate based fertilizers that meet composition limits relevant for
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 Classification criteria
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
incompatible materials in
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
composition limits of
UN2067. Classify as
explosive. (See
39.4.4)
7 NO
8Does it contain >5% AS?
(See 39.4.6)YES
Not within the
composition limits of
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
composition limits of
UN2067 or UN2071.
(See 39.4.3)
13 NO NO NO
14Does it contain >5%
AS? (See 39.4.6)YES
Does it contain ≥10%
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
composition limits of
UN2067 or UN2071.
(See 39.4.3)
17
18 Does it contain ≥45% AN? YES
Does it contain >0.4%
combustible
substances? (See
39.3.4)
YES
Not within the
composition limits of
UN2067 or UN2071.
(See 39.4.3)
19 NO NO
20
Is it capable of self-
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
Does it contain >0.4%
combustible substances?
(See 39.3.4)
YES
Not within the
composition limits of
UN2067. (See 39.4.3)
35 NO NO
36Does it contain >5% AS?
(See 39.4.6)YES
Not within the
composition limits of
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
40Classify as UN2067. (See
39.4.2 and 39.4.5)
42Does it contain
>45% AN?YES
Does it contain >0.4%
combustible substances?
(See 39.3.4)
YES
Not within the
composition limits of
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
• 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
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.”
• Under “Other substances …”, delete “2071 AMMONIUM NITRATE
BASED FERTILISER”.
In Chapter 3.2
• For UN No. 2067, delete 186 and 306 from column (6) Special provisions;
• For UN No. 2071, delete 186 from column (6) Special provisions.
In Chapter 3.3
• Delete Special provision 186;
• 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."
• Change Special provision 307 to read:
“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:
• 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 38.2.3.3, delete the words “and provided they do not contain an
excess nitrate greater than 10% by mass (calculated as potassium nitrate)“
• Insert a new paragraph 38.2.3.4, reading:
“The overall classification procedure for ammonium nitrate based fertilizers
is set out in Section 39.”
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
calculated as ammonium nitrate.
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.
307 This entry may only be used for uniform
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”
Section 12 Amendments agreed with the following modifications:
12.5.1.3.1 Amend to read as follows:
“In footnote 1, replace “transport conditions” with “operating
conditions”
Section 13 Amendments agreed with the following modifications:
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”.”
13.4 Replace with the following:
“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”.
13.5 Replace with the following:
“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)
13.5.1.3.1 Replace with the following:
“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”.
13.5.3.3.1 Replace with the following:
“Replace “wetting agent provided for transport” with “wetting agent
specified”.”
13.5.4.3.1 Replace with the following:
“Replace “wetting agent provided for transport” with “wetting agent
specified”.”
13.6.1.3.1 Replace with the following:
“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.
Section 15 Amendments agreed with the following modifications:
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.
Section 16 Amendments agreed with the following modifications:
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
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
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.
14 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.3/2016/55
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 (60/40) Bursting 2.80 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
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
Potassium perchlorate/Potassium
hydrogen terephthalate /Titanium
(62/25/13)
Aural
(whistle) Pierced Flash composition
Potassium perchlorate/Aluminium
(P2000)/Aluminium (P50) (53/16/31) Waterfall Pierced Flash composition
Potassium perchlorate/Aluminium
(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 (60/40) Bursting 17.7 Flash composition
Potassium perchlorate/Charcoal (50/50) Bursting 6.7 Not flash
composition
Potassium perchlorate/Potassium
nitrate /Charcoal (53/26/21) Bursting Torn Flash composition
Potassium perchlorate/Potassium
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
Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods
and on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification
and Labelling of Chemicals
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
15 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.3/2016/53−ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2016/14
Secretariat Distr.: General 6 September 2016 Original: English
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
Fiftieth session Thirty-second session
Geneva, 28 November-6 December 2016
Item 2 (b) of the provisional agenda
Recommendations made by the Sub-
Committee on its forty-seventh, forty-eighth
and forty-ninth sessions and pending issues:
explosives and related matters
Geneva, 7-9 December 2016
Item 2 (a) of the provisional agenda
Classification criteria and related hazard
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;
(b) Explosive articles, except devices containing explosive substances
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;
(b) Explosive articles, except devices containing explosive substances
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:
(a) Explosive substances and mixtures;
(b) Explosive articles, except devices containing explosive substances
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.’
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
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
Fiftieth session Geneva, 28 November-6 December 2016
Item 2 (b) of the provisional agenda
Recommendations made by the Sub-Committee
on its forty-seventh, forty-eighth and
forty-ninth sessions and pending issues:
explosives and related matters
Manual of Tests and Criteria
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.
16 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.3/2016/60
Secretariat Distr.: General 5 September 2016 Original: English
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
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
Fiftieth session Geneva, 28 November-6 December 2016
Item 2 (b) of the provisional agenda
Recommendations made by the Sub-Committee
on its forty-seventh, forty-eighth and
forty-ninth sessions and pending issues:
explosives and related matters
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
17 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.3/2016/61
Secretariat Distr.: General 2 September 2016 Original: English
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
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
Fiftieth session
Geneva, 28 November-6 December 2016
Item 2 (b) of the provisional agenda
Recommendations made by the Sub-Committee
on its forty-seventh, forty-eighth
and forty-ninth sessions and pending issues:
explosives and related matters
Clarification of the classification of ammonium nitrate
based fertilizers – proposal for a new Section 39 in the
Manual of Tests and Criteria
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.
18 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). 19 ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/29 20 UN/SCETDG/49/INF.5 and UN/SCETDG/49/INF.23, respectively
United Nations ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2016/66
Secretariat Distr.: General 6 September 2016 Original: English
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
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 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
calculated as ammonium nitrate.
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 Classification procedure
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.
39.4.3 Ammonium nitrate based fertilizers that do not fulfil the requirements for
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.
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 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 Classification criteria
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
incompatible materials in
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
composition limits of
UN2067. Classify as
explosive. (See
39.4.4)
7 NO
8Does it contain >5% AS?
(See 39.4.6)YES
Not within the
composition limits of
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
composition limits of
UN2067 or UN2071.
(See 39.4.3)
13 NO NO NO
14Does it contain >5%
AS? (See 39.4.6)YES
Does it contain ≥10%
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
composition limits of
UN2067 or UN2071.
(See 39.4.3)
17
18 Does it contain ≥45% AN? YES
Does it contain >0.4%
combustible
substances? (See
39.3.4)
YES
Not within the
composition limits of
UN2067 or UN2071.
(See 39.4.3)
19 NO NO
20
Is it capable of self-
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
Does it contain >0.4%
combustible substances?
(See 39.3.4)
YES
Not within the
composition limits of
UN2067. (See 39.4.3)
35 NO NO
36Does it contain >5% AS?
(See 39.4.6)YES
Not within the
composition limits of
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
40Classify as UN2067. (See
39.4.2 and 39.4.5)
42Does it contain
>45% AN?YES
Does it contain >0.4%
combustible substances?
(See 39.3.4)
YES
Not within the
composition limits of
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
• 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
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.”
• Under “Other substances …”, delete “2071 AMMONIUM NITRATE
BASED FERTILISER”.
In Chapter 3.2
• For UN No. 2067, delete 186 and 306 from column (6) Special provisions;
• For UN No. 2071, delete 186 from column (6) Special provisions.
In Chapter 3.3
• Delete Special provision 186;
• 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."
• Change Special provision 307 to read:
“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:
• 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 38.2.3.3, delete the words “and provided they do not contain an
excess nitrate greater than 10% by mass (calculated as potassium nitrate)“
• Insert a new paragraph 38.2.3.4, reading:
“The overall classification procedure for ammonium nitrate based fertilizers
is set out in Section 39.”
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
calculated as ammonium nitrate.
Deleted Replaced by 39.3.3 in
new Section 39 with the
same requirement.
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. 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.
307 This entry may only be used for uniform
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
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
Sub-Committee of Experts on the Globally
Harmonized System of Classification and
Labelling of Chemicals
Fiftieth session Thirty-second session
Geneva, 27 November-6 December 2016
Item 7 (g) of the provisional agenda
Issues relating to the Globally Harmonized
System of Classification and Labelling of
Chemicals:
use of the Manual of Tests and Criteria in
the context of the GHS
Geneva, 7-9 December 2016
Item 2 (b) of the provisional agenda
Classification criteria and related hazard
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
25 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.3/2016/83−ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2016/16
Secretariat Distr.: General 16 September 2016 Original: English
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
(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 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)
7. NGO 機関(全 18 機関):
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).
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)
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
火薬 WG での議論と結果
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:
2.17.2.1 Any explosive which is desensitized shall be
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
(b) It has a mass explosion hazard according to
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.
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).
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
(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 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)
7. NGO 機関(全 18 機関):
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).
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)
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。
火薬 WG での議論と結果
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
Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods
and on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification
and Labelling of Chemicals 27 October 2016
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
Fiftieth session Thirty-second session
Geneva, 28 November-6 December 2016
Item 7 (h) of the provisional agenda
Issues relating to the Globally Harmonized
System of Classification and Labelling of
Chemicals: review of Chapter 2.1 of the
GHS
Geneva, 7-9 December 2016
Item 2 (g) of the provisional agenda
Classification criteria and related hazard
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:
(a) Explosive substances and mixtures;
(b) Explosive articles, except devices containing explosive substances
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
150
(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.
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 Classification criteria
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.
160
161
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
Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods
(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
Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods
and on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification
and Labelling of Chemicals 11 November 2016
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
Fiftieth session Thirty-second session
Geneva, 28 November-6 December 2016
Item 7 (h) of the provisional agenda
Issues related to the Globally Harmonized
System of Classification and Labelling of
Chemicals: Review of Chapter 2.1 of the
GHS
Geneva, 7-9 December 2016
Item 2 (b) of the provisional agenda
Classification criteria and related hazard
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)
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)
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)
国際幹事 :Ms. Huang Chaxiang(SAC)
参加者 :全 24 名(6 ヶ国と 1 リエゾン)
参加国 :ドイツ(4)、フランス(4)、日本(2)、中国(9)、イスラエル(1)、スウ
ェーデン(3)、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)
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"
FDIS 段階をスキップする投票結果に基づき出版される。
ISO 26261-4 ”Fireworks •• Category 4 •• Part 4: Minimum labelling requirements and
instructions for use"
FDIS 段階をスキップする投票結果に基づき出版される。
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
国際幹事 :Ms. Huang Chaxiang(SAC)
参加者 :全 26 名(6 ヶ国とリエゾン)
参加国 :ドイツ(4)、フランス(2)、日本(2)、中国(13)、イスラエル(1)、スウ
ェーデン(3)、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)
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)
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
top related