[GA- Failed] Asbestos Consumption, Disposal And Worker Protection

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bobberino

Bobberino

Spammer in Chief
-
-
Pronouns
He/Him, They/Them
TNP Nation
Bobberino
Discord
Bobberino#6969
ga.jpg
Asbestos Consumption, Disposal And Worker Protection​
Category: Environmental | Area of Effect: All Business​
Proposed by: Etharica | Onsite Topic​



The General Assembly,

Understanding the uses of asbestos due to its sound absorption, average tensile strength, affordability, and resistance to fire, heat, and electricity,

Taking into account the economic benefit brought by asbestos mining,

Concerned that inhalation of asbestos fibres can cause lung cancer, mesothelioma, and asbestosis,

Understanding that asbestos is friable,

Hereby,

1. Defines "asbestos" as fibrous crystals of any of the following minerals:

a. Actinolite,

b. Gruenerite in its amosite form,

c. Anthophyllite,

d. Chrysotile,

e. Crocidolite and

f. Tremolite.

2. Mandates that deliberate exposure to asbestos shall only be allowed in:

a. short, non-continuous maintenance activities,

b. removal without deterioration of non-degraded materials in which the asbestos fibres are firmly linked in a matrix,

c. encapsulation or sealing of asbestos-containing materials which are in good condition and

d. air monitoring and control, and short, non-continuous maintenance activities in which only non-friable materials are handled.

3. Mandates that member states shall bring into force a ban on the production and marketing of asbestos-containing products, along with mining for asbestos, coming into force by 6 years after the enactment of this resolution.

4. Mandates that asbestos exposure shall be kept to a minimum by:

a. limiting the number of workers involved in the process,

b. design of processes in order to avoid creating asbestos dust,

c. clean and well-maintained premises and equipment,

d. rapid removal of waste, in sealed and labelled containers and

e. any other necessary and reasonable techniques to minimise exposure.

5. Mandates that, where there is a likely risk of exposure to asbestos, the risk must be assessed by the manufacturer, or Member State if possible, to determine the nature and degree of exposure.

6. Mandates that no person must be exposed to an airborne concentration of asbestos in excess of 0.1 fibres per cm3 as an eight-hour time-weighted average.

7. Mandates that waste containing more than 0.1% asbestos shall be:

a. classed as as hazardous waste,

b. in a sealed container such as a covered, locked waste container or, if more appropriate, within sealed wrapping, when transported or stored,

c. not mixed with other waste,

d. clearly labelled as such and

e. disposed of in a landfill that has a specific permit authorising it to accept asbestos.
Click to expand...




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 the resolution.
Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
 
Ministry IFV
Calling for worker safety and standards for asbestos is a laudable cause. The substance of the resolution alone seems to be rather harmless in and of itself, however setting arbitrary execution deadlines as well as a lack of any real need - noting that worker safety is already blanket covered by GAR 7 - creates an awkward and improperly executed proposal. Such proposal should be better attuned to addressing building standards and safety to help prevent asbestos leaks from following society into the future.

Hoping for a better applied redraft including reasons stated above, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs votes Against this resolution.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sounds like the proposer really knows his stuff, I agree asbestos is obviously bad stuff and it can’t hurt to cut it out. Problems I see bandied about are about style not substance. The substance is sound in my view, so it has my support.

For
 
I dont like this.

The 6 year time window seems completely arbitrary with not justified reason for it being there. Also generally unneeded due to GAR 7

Against
 
Voting AGAINST

As always, I will adjust my vote if the majority shifts in the other direction.
 
Any time someone adds an arbitrary time window to a proposal, it seems like they don't understand the nature of the World Assembly from an In-Character perspective, and NationStates from an Out-of-Character perspective. Changes to national statistics as a result of the resolution occur immediately upon passage, not after the 6-year implementation window that the author has proposed.

Against
 
While I agree that the 6-year timeframe makes little sense from an IG perspective, my personal belief is that voting against this resolution solely based on that may be a slight overreaction.
After all, I find the resolution very accurately documented, and reasonable besides the above point.

For
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top