PASSED: Chemical Transport Standards
#1

Quote: Chemical Transport Standards

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.


Category: Free Trade


Strength: Mild


Proposed by: Norderia

Description: WHEREAS chemicals are a widely traded commodity;

WHEREAS no current standards exist for the identification or transportation of chemical substances;

WHEREAS the variety of nations in the UN may have myriad means of identifying and transporting chemical substances;

The United Nations;

BELIEVING that a lack of standards regarding the identification and transportation of chemical substances is a severe safety hazard;

1. ESTABLISHES the United Nations Hazard Rating (UNHR). The UNHR is a rating for common hazards of chemical substances. The UNHR includes the following information:
i) A flamability rating of 0 to 4, where 0 indicates a small flamability risk, and 4 indicates a high flamability risk;
ii) A health risk rating of 0 to 4, where 0 indicates a small health risk, and 4 indicates a high health risk;
iii) A reactivity risk rating of 0 to 4, where 0 indicates a small reactivity risk, and 4 indicates a high reactivity risk;
iv) A special notation to indicate specific risks, such as, but not restricted to an exceptionally high reactivity to water, or for strong oxidizers;

2. ESTABLISHES the United Nations Chemical Transportation Commission (UNCTC). The following are the UNCTC's duties:
i) To compile a list of, and define hazardous materials;
ii) To enumerate the list of hazardous materials, using the Arabic numerals (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9), using twelve digits for each substance. These 12-digit numbers will be known as Chemical Identification Numbers (CIN);
iii) To prescribe minimum requirements for the safe transportation of hazardous materials;
iv) To compile a list of all other chemical substances and assign a CIN to each. A new CIN is to be assigned to differing isomers and isotopes of substances with identical chemical makeups;
v) To determine the UNHR for the substances as described in sections 2i and 2iv;

3. MANDATES
i) That UN member nations comply with the UNCTC's requirements and employ the UNCTC's CINs when transporting substances over international borders and international waters;
ii) That containers containing hazardous materials are clearly marked as such, on all faces of the containers. These markings will include the UNHR and CIN for the substance held within the container;
iii) That, under non-emergency circumstances, no substances shall be placed in a container that is marked for another substance;
iv) That, under non-emergency circumstances, no containers shall be vandalized, or mislabeled to misrepresent the substances contained within, or their potential hazard risks;
v) That UN member nations inform non-member nations that shipments that do not comply with the above four clauses may be turned away in the interest of the safety of the receiving nation;

4. EMPHASIZES that this Resolution does not mandate any changes to the current intranational systems being used by member nations;

5. ENCOURAGES member nations to implement the measures set forth by this Resolution in their own national transportation systems.

Voting Ends: Wed Oct 25 2006 [/quote]
Reply
#2

It's almost a little bit confusing and overly detailed, but I'm leaning towards FOR. I won't cast my vote just yet.
Reply
#3

The regional vote is due on Tuesday, so make sure that you get it in before then. Smile
Reply
#4

FOR. I like it.
Reply
#5

for, but it is kinda confusing :hm:
Reply
#6

Definite FOR.
Reply
#7

The technical detail is probably a bit much; as I know from personal experience with the early drafts of the Tsunami Warning System resolution. (The original author wanted to include technical specifications for the warning system, but that was changed so the drafts would fall within the length limits for proposals.)

In any event, setting the technical specifications aside, it contributes to uniform treatment of the issue (safety in chemical transport) and is an appropriate area for international standards, so we will vote "FOR."
Reply
#8

Please count me FOR as well. No long speeches this time. LMAO
Reply
#9

Tech details are always a double edged sword. Not including them opens your idea up for complaints from nations that will say, "This doesn't do enough" and including too many not only make for a longer (harder to read) resolution, but opens the document up to "This will not work so well everywhere".

Though there is a day left, I'd like to encourage everybody here to swing by the UN forum and vote on their poll as well. I'm collecting data from the UN forum poll and comparing it to the final UN vote ... as well at looking at the age distribution of nations.
Reply
#10

Mik, it doesn't help matters much when the Jolt forums are down!
Reply
#11

This resolution has passed.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)