NationStates

Reducing Spills and Leaks

Category: Environmental
Industries Affected: All Businesses

The World Assembly,

Believing that reduction of harm to the environment and preservation of lives is an issue of paramount importance to this body,

Accepting that spills and leaks, when involving hazardous materials, may cause irreparable harm to the environment and result in lost lives,

Hereby,

1. Establishes the Spill and Leak Disaster Administration (SaLDA) with the following responsibilities:

1. Creating safety standards to minimize the risk of a spill or leak during material transport and storage,
2. Establishing cleanup standards for spills and leaks,
3. Designing reimbursement standards for the purposes of:
   
   1. Making whole those affected by spills and leaks,
   2. Collecting appropriately punitive penalties from those entities that cause and/or allow spills or leaks to occur through negligence,
4. Acquiring technologies that reduce the risk of spills and leaks,
5. Distributing technologies to nations in order to minimize the risk of spills and leaks,
6. Recommending the usage of SaLDA standards and technologies to WA Nations,

2. Requires nations to establish standards and utilize technologies appropriate to their needs and capabilities using SaLDA recommendations and technological resources for the following purposes:

1. Minimizing the risk of spills and leaks,
2. Making whole those affected by spills and leaks,
3. Enabling faster and more efficient cleanup of spills and leaks,

3. Urges nations to establish standards in line with any SaLDA recommendations not already required by clause 2,

4. Requires that nations deny entry to their territory to any transport owned and/or operated by an entity that does not follow SaLDA recommendations as outlined by clause 2 and which is carrying materials the nation to be transited considers capable of causing a spill or leak,

5. Allows exceptions to denials of entry as outlined in clause 4 in the following situations:

1. If such a denial would itself create a public safety hazard or significant environmental damage,
2. If such a denial would be in violation of extant international law,
3. If said transport is in compliance with all safety standards relating to SaLDA recommendations adopted by the nation it is transiting,

6. Requires nations to make a good faith effort outside of SaLDA recommendations to minimize the risk of spills and leaks from any transport originating in their territory or from any storage facility housed in their nation,

7. Urges nations to cooperate in the cleanup of spills and leaks.

Alright. This is the replacement I've envisioned for the Oil Tanker Standards Act. It's a rough first draft which no one has seen prior to this posting. Clause 4 and 5 should be in compliance with WA 34. 34 explicitly says WA nations, so transports owned or operated by companies outside of WA Nations are allowed to be barred entry even if they comply with 34. That said, on the off chance that 34 itself gets repealed, this resolution would stand on its own.

Input is welcome.

Isn't a flood a "spill and leak" by definition of this proposal, then, since it causes a "public safety hazard"?

Elke and Elba wrote:Isn't a flood a "spill and leak" by definition of this proposal, then, since it causes a "public safety hazard"?

Yes. Though not an original intent I can think of any number of situations where it could be useful for that very purpose.

Mhmm kay.

Levying appropriately punitive penalties for those entities that cause and/or allow leaks or spills to occur through negligence,

So, governments will be punished if the dams failed to prevent a flood?

OOC: Given I'm not American - I'm not very at ease with the idea of "punitive penalties", not to mention that I don't think the idea of "WA taking money from governments (which is admittedly, one of the many entities) yet again for not preventing spills/leaks even if they don't have money" is going to go down very well.

OOC: Happy to see you tackling this, but I have to say when I first saw the title, I thought it was about information leaks. It's a good title, don't change it unless you absolutely have to. My brain's just doing some random connections cause of lack of sleep.

Elke and Elba wrote:Mhmm kay.

Levying appropriately punitive penalties for those entities that cause and/or allow leaks or spills to occur through negligence,

So, governments will be punished if the dams failed to prevent a flood?

OOC: Given I'm not American - I'm not very at ease with the idea of "punitive penalties", not to mention that I don't think the idea of "WA taking money from governments (which is admittedly, one of the many entities) yet again for not preventing spills/leaks even if they don't have money" is going to go down very well.

Yes. Again I don't see how that's an issue. Or wait. Are you not talking about a dam creating a public safety issue, but rather the lack of a dam not preventing one? If so the operative term is "release". A natural disaster has no one to penalize or direct because no one "released" the materials.

OOC: However, the punitive penalties are supposed to be collected for distribution among those affected by the spills/leaks. Not for WA. I may need to tweak some wording for that(edit: Done). There's also the matter of using my the term "appropriately punitive" which cuts both ways. It can be lenient where the SaLDA sees a need and stricter where the SaLDA sees a clear benefit to an increase in the damages rendered.

Edit: However, my previous wording only established the standards for nations themselves to enforce. A nation likely wouldn't be collecting the fees against themselves.

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, a "spill" or "leak" as any deliberate or accidental release of materials that may cause a public safety hazard or which may damage the environment,

For example, bombing campaigns? Firing bullets from guns?

Bears Armed wrote:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, a "spill" or "leak" as any deliberate or accidental release of materials that may cause a public safety hazard or which may damage the environment,

For example, bombing campaigns? Firing bullets from guns?

I've edited out deliberate. Though I'm sure there's a way to phrase it to fix that problem. I'll take the time to think it up.

Edit: "1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, a "spill" or "leak" as any deliberate or accidental release of materials during transport and/or storage that may cause a public safety hazard or which may damage the environment and specifically excludes "materiel","

Specifically excluding "materiel" should do the job, right?

I find section 4 to be a little vague and possibly dangerous. Anything that can cause a leak is a wide category. The language kind of works in the end but it still makes me uncomfortable.

Also, please rename SaLDA the Spill and Leak Accident Department. For science purposes.

Defwa wrote:I find section 4 to be a little vague and possibly dangerous. Anything that can cause a leak is a wide category. The language kind of works in the end but it still makes me uncomfortable.

Also, please rename SaLDA the Spill and Leak Accident Department. For science purposes.

I genuinely gave some thought to cooking up an acronym that would be Salad but decided that would be too silly. Though, the language of section 4 actually could use some tightening.

I've added another exception(and turned it into a list) and cleaned up some of the awkward phrasing in 4. Lemme know what you think.

The Dourian Embassy wrote:

Defwa wrote:I find section 4 to be a little vague and possibly dangerous. Anything that can cause a leak is a wide category. The language kind of works in the end but it still makes me uncomfortable.

Also, please rename SaLDA the Spill and Leak Accident Department. For science purposes.

I genuinely gave some thought to cooking up an acronym that would be Salad but decided that would be too silly. Though, the language of section 4 actually could use some tightening.

I've added another exception(and turned it into a list) and cleaned up some of the awkward phrasing in 4. Lemme know what you think.

That's perfect. I was looking at the same language for another resolution dealing specifically with oil tankers.

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, a "spill" or "leak" as any deliberate or accidental release of materials during transport and/or storage that may cause a public safety hazard or which may damage the environment and specifically excludes "materiel",

Would a spilt drink, leaked onto the floor of a public area during a walk-about, that causes a public safety hazard due to potential slippage, be covered under this definition?

OOC: Just being pedantic.

Aligned Planets wrote:

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, a "spill" or "leak" as any deliberate or accidental release of materials during transport and/or storage that may cause a public safety hazard or which may damage the environment and specifically excludes "materiel",

Would a spilt drink, leaked onto the floor of a public area during a walk-about, that causes a public safety hazard due to potential slippage, be covered under this definition?

OOC: Just being pedantic.

Yes. It would. Though I think it would be reasonable to expect people to clean up their own spills and be responsible for damages caused by them. It is a bit specific for my tastes though. How would you go about fixing that problem?

OOC: I prefer that. The more pedantic comments you can make the better. If I'm going to hold other people up to a high standard it's only fair that I hold myself up to one as well.

4. Requires nations to deny entry to their territory to any transport owned and/or operated by an entity that does not follow SaLDA recommendations and which is carrying materials capable of causing a spill or leak,

Would this not require us to ban the entry of ALL tankers then? They COULD be attacked and cause a spill....

Chester Pearson wrote:

4. Requires nations to deny entry to their territory to any transport owned and/or operated by an entity that does not follow SaLDA recommendations and which is carrying materials capable of causing a spill or leak,

Would this not require us to ban the entry of ALL tankers then? They COULD be attacked and cause a spill....

That is actually the point of that line yes. It requires nations to ban all tankers (or transports) inside their border which don't follow SaLDA recommendations (except those which fall under any of the exceptions listed in 5). If your transport (not just tankers, this includes all transports) doesn't follow the SaLDA recommendations which have been adopted by the nations you're transiting or heading to, and you don't fit one of the exceptions, you can't come in.

"4. Requires nations to deny entry to their territory to any transport owned and/or operated by an entity that does not follow SaLDA recommendations and which is carrying materials capable of causing a spill or leak,"

"I am not sure I like this line. All ships that utilize fuel of some sort are capable of causing spills or leaking, regardless of cargo and the like. I also question rather it is a backdoor road to pushing resolutions on non-member nations, which is something I do not support".

The Dourian Embassy wrote:Edit: "1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, a "spill" or "leak" as any deliberate or accidental release of materials during transport and/or storage that may cause a public safety hazard or which may damage the environment and specifically excludes "materiel","

Specifically excluding "materiel" should do the job, right?

Or you could just have it exclude military action?

Normlpeople wrote:

"4. Requires nations to deny entry to their territory to any transport owned and/or operated by an entity that does not follow SaLDA recommendations and which is carrying materials capable of causing a spill or leak,"

"I am not sure I like this line. All ships that utilize fuel of some sort are capable of causing spills or leaking, regardless of cargo and the like. I also question rather it is a backdoor road to pushing resolutions on non-member nations, which is something I do not support".

If a non WA nation's company operates in WA territory, they must abide by WA law. That much is clear cut. I don't think its too much to ask that all vessels are held to a minimum safety standard.

"So, this new draft is supposed to be a replacement for the oil spills legislation that was recently repealed.. okay," Sia Hedishi shifts through paperwork looking for her notes as she drinks her coffee. "Ah hear it is. Well, it appears the main problem with the original piece of legislation was lack of specific language. This early draft I'm looking at looks very bare bones, so I would encourage that this be deliberated among the members of the World Assembly for longer than usual to ensure that none of the terms used will be vague and insufficient in practical usages."

WA Ambassador of Hakio
~Sia Hedishi

Hakio wrote:This early draft I'm looking at looks very bare bones

Ideally this will remain bare bones. When you try to be overly specific, you cause more problems than you solve. Then you need new language to deal with that and it becomes some monstrosity.

Normlpeople wrote:"I am not sure I like this line. All ships that utilize fuel of some sort are capable of causing spills or leaking, regardless of cargo and the like. I also question rather it is a backdoor road to pushing resolutions on non-member nations, which is something I do not support".

Yes, as the comment I made just before yours states, that is actually the point. I'd have carved out no exceptions at all for ships not "capable of causing a spill or leak" but I want nations to have the power to decide how to handle things. If a nation wants to include all transports(again, not just ships), then they can do that. If they'd like to consider just ships carrying cargo they can make that call as well. I've edited that language a bit to drive the point home.

I also retooled the definition yet again. I was examining it from how I'd repeal it and realized that the previous definition could include exhaust from an airplane or cars or pretty much any vehicle. So now it says "significant and immediate" harm/public safety hazards. Which doesn't really include "pollution".

Can I just say again that the "flaw" of section 4 banning literally any transport that doesn't comply with SaLDA recommendations in the nation it is transiting or traveling to is not a flaw and is fully intended to work that way. Unless the nation in question decides that the transport isn't capable of causing a spill or leak.

I am happy to see people examining it for flaws but that is not one, and it's been mentioned a couple of times now.

The Dourian Embassy wrote:

Hakio wrote:This early draft I'm looking at looks very bare bones

Ideally this will remain bare bones. When you try to be overly specific, you cause more problems than you solve. Then you need new language to deal with that and it becomes some monstrosity.

"So you're trying to simplify the recently repealed legislation?"

Hakio wrote:

The Dourian Embassy wrote:
Ideally this will remain bare bones. When you try to be overly specific, you cause more problems than you solve. Then you need new language to deal with that and it becomes some monstrosity.

"So you're trying to simplify the recently repealed legislation?"

The other resolution was overly specific without explaining what it was talking about. It outlined ventilation systems for example, which is INCREDIBLY specific, but didn't explain what they'd be used for. Something can be too narrow, and fail to explain what the heck it's talking about at the same time.

While this is broad, its also quite open. As long as we can hammer out erroneous interpretations, we can have this on the book as a catch all and then write in specific ones later that target important situations. There's still room for a resolution about tanker standards, for instance

What strength do you foresee for this proposal? Has that been determined, or are you waiting until you have developed a final draft before making that decision? As it stands, especially with the oft-quoted Section 4, I can only imagine that this proposal would be considered "strong," considering the possible (and likely) severe cut to trade with non-WA members.

All that said, you have Artigat's support. The environment will always be much more important than the whims of corrupt businessmen.

Why "non-military?" Bombs don't spill out of an airplane. Bullets don't leak out of a gun. And frankly, if a member state accidentally drops bombs on a neighborhood, there should be some serious consequences to that. But this is the wrong type of resolution to address that issue, when it's obviously we want to talk about toxic substance spills.

We all know what a spill and a leak is. You guys are just making it hard on yourselves by trying to boil everything down into its English language sub-components.