[PASSED] Asbestos Consumption, Disposal+Worker Protection

[Erithaca]

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses - Mild

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:
   
   1. Actinolite,
      
   2. Gruenerite in its amosite form,
      
   3. Anthophyllite,
      
   4. Chrysotile,
      
   5. Crocidolite and
      
   6. Tremolite.
2. Mandates that deliberate exposure to asbestos shall only be allowed in:
   
   1. short, non-continuous maintenance activities,
      
   2. removal without deterioration of non-degraded materials in which the asbestos fibres are firmly linked in a matrix,
      
   3. encapsulation or sealing of asbestos-containing materials which are in good condition and
      
   4. 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:
   
   1. limiting the number of workers involved in the process,
      
   2. design of processes in order to avoid creating asbestos dust,
      
   3. clean and well-maintained premises and equipment,
      
   4. rapid removal of waste, in sealed and labelled containers and
      
   5. 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:
   
   1. classed as as hazardous waste,
      
   2. in a sealed container such as a covered, locked waste container or, if more appropriate, within sealed wrapping, when transported or stored,
      
   3. not mixed with other waste,
      
   4. clearly labelled as such and
      
   5. disposed of in a landfill that has a specific permit authorising it to accept asbestos.

[Erithaca]

I changed the title to make it clear that we are not trying to consume workers!

[Veniyerris]

OOC: Already a resolution covering this, GA#7: Workplace Safety Standards act

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Already a resolution covering this, GA#7: Workplace Safety Standards act

(OOC: Clause 14 in that resolution states that it does not ban more stringent measures. This proposal could focus on giving more complete controls on asbestos than GA#7 provides.)

"In clause 1, you have not defined “asbestos” but rather listed all its types. For a start, a definition shouldn't use the word it is defining in the definition, otherwise it is circular and next to useless."

[Veniyerris]

OOC: Already a resolution covering this, GA#7: Workplace Safety Standards act

(OOC: Clause 14 in that resolution states that it does not ban more stringent measures. This proposal could focus on giving more complete controls on asbestos than GA#7 provides.)

A fair point. But in its current form I believe it would not work. However, I’m open to a proposal of this nature

[Erithaca]

OOC: Already a resolution covering this, GA#7: Workplace Safety Standards act

(OOC: Clause 14 in that resolution states that it does not ban more stringent measures. This proposal could focus on giving more complete controls on asbestos than GA#7 provides.)

"In clause 1, you have not defined “asbestos” but rather listed all its types. For a start, a definition shouldn't use the word it is defining in the definition, otherwise it is circular and next to useless."

It is not exactly circular, but I will change it. Technically speaking, “asbestos” is a commercial and legal term encompassing multiple types of minerals. Some of the mineral names just contain the word "asbestos", without the definition being circular.OOC: The six types defined by organisations such as the EU have been listed.

I have removed the last clause on training of workers, which duplicates GA7. I have changed the exposure limit so that it applies to all persons. I should have noticed GA7 before writing the first draft!

[A Bright Future]

Lovely! I really like the 6 year implementation timeline.

For 4 I would maybe add something like a clause saying 'including any best available technique to minimize exposure'.

For 5 I would maybe specify who is to assess, maybe adding that this should be made publicly available information, and maybe that a plan of measures for minimizing exposure should be made and implemented.

I would potentially consider adding a clause on safe disposal.

Maybe mandate a WA body to collate and disseminate information on asbestos risks and exposure minimization measures and provide support to member states that request it.

[Kenmoria]

"You have no finishing punctuation on the first or second preamble clauses. Also, clause 2d should end with a full stop and I would strongly recommend using a ³ for “cm3”."

[Erithaca]

"You have no finishing punctuation on the first or second preamble clauses. Also, clause 2d should end with a full stop and I would strongly recommend using a ³ for “cm3”."

I will add them and suspend the 3.

[Erithaca]

Lovely! I really like the 6 year implementation timeline.
Thanks for the support.
For 4 I would maybe add something like a clause saying 'including any best available technique to minimize exposure'.
I will add it.
For 5 I would maybe specify who is to assess, maybe adding that this should be made publicly available information, and maybe that a plan of measures for minimizing exposure should be made and implemented.
Good idea. I will get the member government to do it. I might change it to a WA Committee in the future.
I would potentially consider adding a clause on safe disposal.
4.d. deals with this already.
Maybe mandate a WA body to collate and disseminate information on asbestos risks and exposure minimization measures and provide support to member states that request it.
Seems like a good idea, but I am unsure which one to use. Should I create a new one?

[Araraukar]

OOC: In RL asbestos is usually fine where it is, when it's been originally installed properly. It's only when you start removing it that it becomes a hazard.

So rather than require all older (in RL that'd easily be anything from 1970's and earlier) buildings (especially ones that might be protected for historical or similar reasons) to be torn down, maybe just require asbestos to be removed if/when they are otherwise renovated or taken down? Like, you know, it's done in RL?

[A Bright Future]

Lovely! I really like the 6 year implementation timeline.
Thanks for the support.
For 4 I would maybe add something like a clause saying 'including any best available technique to minimize exposure'.
I will add it.
For 5 I would maybe specify who is to assess, maybe adding that this should be made publicly available information, and maybe that a plan of measures for minimizing exposure should be made and implemented.
Good idea. I will get the member government to do it. I might change it to a WA Committee in the future.
I would potentially consider adding a clause on safe disposal.
4.d. deals with this already.
Maybe mandate a WA body to collate and disseminate information on asbestos risks and exposure minimization measures and provide support to member states that request it.
Seems like a good idea, but I am unsure which one to use. Should I create a new one?

Take your pick!
I would say maybe WHA.
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=437605

OOC: In RL asbestos is usually fine where it is, when it's been originally installed properly. It's only when you start removing it that it becomes a hazard.

So rather than require all older (in RL that'd easily be anything from 1970's and earlier) buildings (especially ones that might be protected for historical or similar reasons) to be torn down, maybe just require asbestos to be removed if/when they are otherwise renovated or taken down? Like, you know, it's done in RL?

I dont think this has provisions requiring tearing down old buildings. Where do you see that?

[Erithaca]

Take your pick!
I would say maybe WHA.
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=437605

OOC: In RL asbestos is usually fine where it is, when it's been originally installed properly. It's only when you start removing it that it becomes a hazard.

So rather than require all older (in RL that'd easily be anything from 1970's and earlier) buildings (especially ones that might be protected for historical or similar reasons) to be torn down, maybe just require asbestos to be removed if/when they are otherwise renovated or taken down? Like, you know, it's done in RL?

I dont think this has provisions requiring tearing down old buildings. Where do you see that?

The WHA seems like the best one for it. What Araraukar said about Asbestos is true, but my propsoal only bans production and marketing of asbestos. It will phase out asbestos over a long period of time by ensuring that no more of it is produced.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

5. Mandates that, where there is a likely risk of exposure to asbestos, the risk must be assessed by the World Health Authority to determine the nature and degree of exposure.

Is it necessary to assign this responsibility to the WHA? Could it not be assigned to a more local authority instead? Involving the WHA every time seems like it would be excessively taxing on that body, given the possibility for the extreme volume of requests. We see no reason a homeowner should wait in line at the WHA when their local environmental department is likely just as competent, faster, and the end result is likely the same as it was in the other 200 times they were asked.

[Kenmoria]

"There is no space before 'as' in clause 6."

[Erithaca]

"There is no space before 'as' in clause 6."

I'll add one.

[Erithaca]

5. Mandates that, where there is a likely risk of exposure to asbestos, the risk must be assessed by the World Health Authority to determine the nature and degree of exposure.

Is it necessary to assign this responsibility to the WHA? Could it not be assigned to a more local authority instead? Involving the WHA every time seems like it would be excessively taxing on that body, given the possibility for the extreme volume of requests. We see no reason a homeowner should wait in line at the WHA when their local environmental department is likely just as competent, faster, and the end result is likely the same as it was in the other 200 times they were asked.

I shall delegate it to the Member State.

[A Bright Future]

5. Mandates that, where there is a likely risk of exposure to asbestos, the risk must be assessed by the World Health Authority to determine the nature and degree of exposure.

Is it necessary to assign this responsibility to the WHA? Could it not be assigned to a more local authority instead? Involving the WHA every time seems like it would be excessively taxing on that body, given the possibility for the extreme volume of requests. We see no reason a homeowner should wait in line at the WHA when their local environmental department is likely just as competent, faster, and the end result is likely the same as it was in the other 200 times they were asked.

Definitely agreed. Risk assessments should be in developers or whoever it is that is somehow responsible for the site. Potentially subject to local authorities to ensure developers are compliant.

[A Bright Future]

The first preamble makes no sense and should probably just be removed.

I would remove shocked from the preamble.

You definitely need to figure out the area of effect.

Not sure if heath category has a strength but that should also be put in. Also make the formatting generally more like that of passed resolutions.

[Kenmoria]

"The believing clause in the preamble makes little sense, it doesn't say what stronger protections will do."

[Araraukar]

I dont think this has provisions requiring tearing down old buildings. Where do you see that?

OOC: I'm fairly sure there was something to the effect at the time. Hard to say, since there's no changelog or older drafts visible.

However...

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

This would now seem to ban the renovation of such buildings to extract the asbestos.

Also, if you're mainly aiming this for worker protection, wouldn't they already be covered by the workplace protections resolution?

[Erithaca]

The first preamble makes no sense and should probably just be removed.

I would remove shocked from the preamble.

You definitely need to figure out the area of effect.

Not sure if heath category has a strength but that should also be put in. Also make the formatting generally more like that of passed resolutions.

I have no idea how that preamble got in there. I will remove it immediately. I have removed "shocked": it added no extra meaning or depth. What exactly is wrong with the formatting? There is no strength for the health category. I have chosen "healthcare" as the area of effect. It seems a bit odd, but the alternatives are only odder.

"The believing clause in the preamble makes little sense, it doesn't say what stronger protections will do."

Yep. I am a confirmed idiot. It has been removed.

[Kenmoria]

"For clause 5, the member state shouldn't have to check hundreds of employees, I would change the mandate so the employer is the one that is obligated to check."

[Erithaca]

"For clause 5, the member state shouldn't have to check hundreds of employees, I would change the mandate so the employer is the one that is obligated to check."

One would want the lowest possible authority to deal with it.

[A Bright Future]

When I first read this I was also confused by the word extraction thinking it meant removal. Only after reviewing some relevant literature did I see it meant effectively mining. So I would encourage revising that word for added clarity.

I still think that there should be another clause on safe disposal. When I said that I didn't mean how you take it away from the site but rather where does it go in the end. I am not sure on the science and engineering behind this but would expect the resolution to at least provide guidance to states on final disposal. There may be existing legislation on hazardous waste disposal but I have not reviewed the body of law for that.

Jeremić ABF

Ooc. House of cards rule prevents explicit references to earlier resolutions if I understand it correctly. So consider changing that in the preamble.