[GA - Withdrawn] Responsible Handling of Toxic Materials

[Magecastle]

Responsible Handling of Toxic Materials
Category: Environmental | Industry Affected: All Businesses - Strong
Proposed by: The Ice States, Co-authored by: Heavens Reach | Onsite Topic​

---

Whereas many toxic materials are necessary raw materials for chemical industry, or the immediate side-products thereof; and

Whereas the irresponsible handling of toxic materials can be grossly harmful to the health of both persons and the environment, such that international action should be taken to regulate the handling of toxic materials in member nations;

The World Assembly enacts as follows.

1. For the purposes of this resolution, a material shall be considered "toxic" in an environment or a quantity such that said material would pose, directly or via contamination of surrounding environments, a significant risk to health or of causing environmental degradation.
   
   
2. A toxic material may not be disposed of in a manner which may contaminate surrounding environments with said material, unless that material is first processed as to minimise its ability to contaminate the surrounding environment.
   
   
3. No toxic material may be disposed of or otherwise stored without being surrounded by an effective physical barrier preventing said toxic material from contaminating the surrounding environment. Further, any site in which toxic material is disposed of, processed, produced, or stored must have its immediate surrounding areas regularly tested for toxic material originating from said site.
   
   
4. The Toxic Materials Commission (TMC) is established. Upon the detection of an environment being contaminated by toxic material during storage, production, or disposal of the same, the entity responsible for said incident of contamination must promptly report that incident to the TMC, as well as the member nation of jurisdiction.
   
   1. The TMC shall publish the occurence of said incident without undue delay. Further, should that incident threaten the environment of another nation, the TMC shall provide to that nation a recommended means for minimising or resolving harm, as a result of said incident, to that nation's environment. This shall not include harm sufficiently minimised by 4b efforts which have occurred, are occurring, or are to occur.
      
      
   2. The member nation responsible for said incident shall, to the best of its ability, collaborate with the TMC to remove said toxic material from areas under member or consenting non-member nation jurisdiction contaminated with that material as a result of said incident; except where the TMC has received clear and factual evidence that such removal will cause greater harm to that nation's environment than whatever harm is mitigated by such efforts. No member nation or entity therein may wilfully obstruct such removal efforts.
   
   
5. Member nations need not take action against isolated, de minimis violations of Sections 2 - 4, where the quantity of toxic material involved is negligible enough to pose no cognisable hazard to the environment or public health.
   
   
6. All research and data from the jurisdiction of a member nation vis-à-vis the toxicity of materials, or alternatives to toxic materials, must be shared with the TMC, by that member nation or any entity with intellectual property rights over said research or data.
   
   1. Such information need not be provided where that nation or entity lacks practical access to such research or data; that research or data has already been received by the TMC; or the accessing, provision, or distribution of that information is demonstrably likely to compromise national security or personal privacy.
      
      
   2. The TMC shall materially compensate any entity with intellectual property rights over said research or data no more or less than necessary to minimise any financial or other material losses which would be otherwise incurred by said entity as a result of the provision or Section 7 distribution of said research or data.
7. The TMC shall provide to member nations information it has received per Section 6, where such information is likely to help said nations replace, address the dangers of, or reduce toxic materials, except where providing said information is likely to compromise national security or personal privacy.
   
   
8. Previous World Assembly resolutions shall take precedence over this one in the case of contradiction.

Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.

---

Voting Instructions:

• Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
• Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
• Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
• Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

---

For	Against	Abstain	Present
0	0	0	0

 

[Magecastle]

IFV.

 

[Magecastle]

*snip*

 

[Rewan Demontay]

For, seems pretty reasonable overall

 

[Simone]

You're actually running quite a bit below quorum. To quote yourself, I think you can't escape the argument that "tHe SaPiEnT pOtAtOeS oF cOnTrArIaN eXtRaOrDiNaIrE cAn OnLy EaT mErCuRy AnD bReAtHe CaRbOn MoNoXiDe".

To repeat my comment in the gameside forum, I think the topic is too wide. The pesticides one that Cretox and I wrote (repeal GA#374, he wrote almost all of it and I wrote one paragraph) had to deal with issues like what happens if a can of pesticides is dropped and whether such a thing is a toxin in the first place, and a lot of pedantic arguments. This is going to get a lot worse.

 

[Elfnotonashelf]

Tentatively for
I agree with the principle and it is written fairly well however Clause 8 seems fairly nonsensical to me.

 

[Namwenia]

Environmental engineer IRL here. Raising my hands on a few things.

Section 1 - Most nations, including the United States, refer to something as hazardous if it poses a threat to either human health or the environment. Emphasizing that sentient creature health can also be the reason to classify something as toxic may not be a bad change to this section. However, even so, this is a very broad definition. I would recommend that the definition allows for individual member nations to define what is "toxic" or that the TMC as referenced later create a chemical database to define toxicity more clearly based on sentient creature and environmental risks. For example - in a home as insulation, asbestos can be toxic; however, if it is mixed with concrete and buried in the ground, that asbestos isn't moving so is no longer toxic (but signage should be placed so others know what's present so they don't make it toxic by breaking the barrier). Or how arsenic can be found in low levels in most apple juice, but arsenic at high levels found in other materials is considered toxic. Same chemical, different quantities or variation leading to toxicity to sentient creature health or the environment.

Section 2 - Section 2 and 3 may contradict each other depending on the reading. There are chemical means of treating toxic/hazardous waste that stabilizes them so that they can be placed in the ground without contaminating surrounding materials. For example - chemicals like Terrabond have shown great success at binding heavy, hazardous metals like lead so that they are no longer accessible in soils and/or able to travel into the aquifer. This can even be done in situ. Section 2 may allow for that style of environmental in situ treatment or removal/return back into the ground surface. Section 3 could conceivably prohibit this by requiring a physical barrier. I would modify Section 2 such that it reads that, "...unless that material is first processed as to minimise its ability to contaminate the surrounding environment. If a toxic material has been processed and confirmed via analytical testing in accordance with individual member nation limitations to no longer contained contaminants at toxic levels, then it shall no longer be classified as a toxic material and is no longer bound by the requirements of Section 3." Or something to that effect. You may also want to ensure there's language such that if something is chemically modified to no longer be toxic that signage is used to prevent others from impacting the material and undoing the chemical solidification/treatment.

Additionally, what kind of sampling / testing is required by Section 3. Are we talking regular soil / solids sampling? Or are we confirming that the potentially toxic material has not leached into the aquifer? The latter is a useful tool and may be worth exploring while allowing individual member nations to define how that program operates. The former is a bit excessive and as one who performs such sampling, is a difficult for really tracking long term movement of materials.

Section 5 - I like this section's used of "isolated." It may be worth adding additional language to allow folks to not abuse this language by stating that continued de minimus violators can be prosecuted.

Based on my comments above, I am currently AGAINST the proposal as written.

 

[Namwenia]

I am sorry for being so negative. I'm not trying to be, you just happened to touch on a topic I genuinely know about IRL.

I really am supportive of the intent, I just want this to be clear. Even if we have to kick certain parts of this proposal to individual member nations to ensure it covers the topic appropriately.

 

[nvxl]

Against

 

[Kenmoria]

(Non-WA) I supported this forumside, but the reasoning of Namwenia is convincing, so I will vote as present.

 

[Daijaqnida]

Against, as I agree with Namwenia

 

[Magecastle]

It would have definitely been helpful had this been raised up during drafting, but I don't mind withdrawing to remove these issues seeing as it doesn't have too many approvals anyway.

Environmental engineer IRL here. Raising my hands on a few things.

Section 1 - Most nations, including the United States, refer to something as hazardous if it poses a threat to either human health or the environment. Emphasizing that sentient creature health can also be the reason to classify something as toxic may not be a bad change to this section. However, even so, this is a very broad definition. I would recommend that the definition allows for individual member nations to define what is "toxic" or that the TMC as referenced later create a chemical database to define toxicity more clearly based on sentient creature and environmental risks. For example - in a home as insulation, asbestos can be toxic; however, if it is mixed with concrete and buried in the ground, that asbestos isn't moving so is no longer toxic (but signage should be placed so others know what's present so they don't make it toxic by breaking the barrier). Or how arsenic can be found in low levels in most apple juice, but arsenic at high levels found in other materials is considered toxic. Same chemical, different quantities or variation leading to toxicity to sentient creature health or the environment.

I believe that this is already addressed; to use the example of asbestos, if it is mixed with concrete and buried in the ground it is no longer "in an environment or a quantity such that said material would pose, directly or via contamination of surrounding environments, a significant risk to health or of causing environmental degradation". The same goes with apple juice.

Section 2 - Section 2 and 3 may contradict each other depending on the reading. There are chemical means of treating toxic/hazardous waste that stabilizes them so that they can be placed in the ground without contaminating surrounding materials. For example - chemicals like Terrabond have shown great success at binding heavy, hazardous metals like lead so that they are no longer accessible in soils and/or able to travel into the aquifer. This can even be done in situ. Section 2 may allow for that style of environmental in situ treatment or removal/return back into the ground surface. Section 3 could conceivably prohibit this by requiring a physical barrier. I would modify Section 2 such that it reads that, "...unless that material is first processed as to minimise its ability to contaminate the surrounding environment. If a toxic material has been processed and confirmed via analytical testing in accordance with individual member nation limitations to no longer contained contaminants at toxic levels, then it shall no longer be classified as a toxic material and is no longer bound by the requirements of Section 3." Or something to that effect.You may also want to ensure there's language such that if something is chemically modified to no longer be toxic that signage is used to prevent others from impacting the material and undoing the chemical solidification/treatment.

All of this has been done (for the new revision).

Additionally, what kind of sampling / testing is required by Section 3. Are we talking regular soil / solids sampling? Or are we confirming that the potentially toxic material has not leached into the aquifer? The latter is a useful tool and may be worth exploring while allowing individual member nations to define how that program operates. The former is a bit excessive and as one who performs such sampling, is a difficult for really tracking long term movement of materials.

This specifically would be left up to the member nation in question -- as long as the areas are "regularly tested for toxic material originating from said site", it doesn't matter whatever method a member nation decides to use.

Section 5 - I like this section's used of "isolated." It may be worth adding additional language to allow folks to not abuse this language by stating that continued de minimus violators can be prosecuted.

I do believe that this is rather clear in the text; a member nation claiming that "isolated" includes "continued" would just be non-compliance and prosecuted/punished under GA #440.

 

[Jag]

Against