[DRAFT] Environmentally Friendly Nuclear Waste Disposal Act

[The Trollface Ethnostate]

Summary: All nuclear waste must be disposed of in a controlled environment as to prevent damage to ecosystems.

Category: Regulation
AoE: Energy

Within this resolution,

[DRAFT 1]

a. "Waste" refers to used nuclear material that is still radioactive or otherwise dangerous, yet considered to be garbage due to it no longer being usable having already been utilized in power production.
b. A "Controlled Environment" refers to a secluded area with a minimal chance of ecological damage if waste is managed correctly, such as empty fields or long-abandoned urban areas.
c. Government, state-owned, and private energy production are all affected by this act.

In order to minimize ecological damage when utilizing nuclear power, all waste is to be disposed of in a controlled environment (e.g. Empty desert, empty plains, secluded warehouses, etc.). If locating such a zone is not feasible, then a country may turn previous ecosystems into controlled environments. To accomplish this, all life inhabiting the area must be relocated to an appropriate location similar to their previous habitat. If it is not feasibly possible to relocate an organism (e.g. a large tree), then termination of said lifeform is permitted. It should be noted that personnel used to relocate organisms must be properly equipped to relocate medium and large fauna.

[DRAFT 2]

--PREAMBLE--
a. "Waste" refers to used nuclear material that is still radioactive or otherwise dangerous, yet considered to be garbage due to it no longer being usable having already been utilized in power production.
b. A "Controlled Environment" refers to an underground bunker-esque disposal facility, designed to be deep enough to not affect civilians or the environment.
c. Government, state-owned, and private energy production are all affected by this act.
d. If a nation is incapable of paying for the construction of Controlled Environments, then they may petition the World Assembly for a grant to do so.
--BODY--
In order to minimize ecological damage when utilizing nuclear power, all waste is to be disposed of in a Controlled Environment (as explained in Subsection B of the Preamble.). As stated in Preamble, Subsection D, developing nations are allowed to petition the World Assembly for a grant. Furthermore, used nuclear material that may have a possible use besides power production may be sold to the World Assembly. To further minimize possible injuries to civilians, entrances to Controlled Environments are to have indication that they store (possibly radioactive) material.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Welcome to the General Assembly. Although you have posted a draft here, which is good, there is little point in doing so if your proposal has already been submitted. Because no feedback has been given, and because this has meant there is significant room for the proposal to be improved, I suggest withdrawing your legislation so that others have an opportunity to give feedback. For example, the entire last paragraph should be removed, because it mentions a nation name, which isn’t allowed.)

[The Trollface Ethnostate]

(OOC: Welcome to the General Assembly. Although you have posted a draft here, which is good, there is little point in doing so if your proposal has already been submitted. Because no feedback has been given, and because this has meant there is significant room for the proposal to be improved, I suggest withdrawing your legislation so that others have an opportunity to give feedback. For example, the entire last paragraph should be removed, because it mentions a nation name, which isn’t allowed.)

Draft edited, resolution deleted. Sorry bout that.

[Zarnicovia nova]

"I think the types of areas that can be dumped should be decreased to only underground bunkers in case a civilian accidentally enters the area of contamination. If it is underground it is very hard for a civilian to get to and it is easy to tell the civilian of the risk."

[The Trollface Ethnostate]

"I think the types of areas that can be dumped should be decreased to only underground bunkers in case a civilian accidentally enters the area of contamination. If it is underground it is very hard for a civilian to get to and it is easy to tell the civilian of the risk."

That sounds like a good idea, however it doesn't sound feasible for lower-income nations. It would be cheaper to wall off the areas where waste is being disposed of in.

[Potted Plants United]

In order to minimize ecological damage when utilizing nuclear power, all waste is to be disposed of in a controlled environment (e.g. Empty desert, empty plains, secluded warehouses, etc.). If locating such a zone is not feasible, then a country may turn previous ecosystems into controlled environments. To accomplish this, all life inhabiting the area must be relocated to an appropriate location similar to their previous habitat. If it is not feasibly possible to relocate an organism (e.g. a large tree), then termination of said lifeform is permitted. It should be noted that personnel used to relocate organisms must be properly equipped to relocate medium and large fauna.

"Could someone please get in contact with the WA enforcement agency and get on the case of this ambassador's home nation? They clearly have failed to provide the most basic of education to this person, as evidenced by the underlined parts. Ambassador, it is impossible to remove the ecosphere from within the biosphere of a living planet."

OOC: Even cleanrooms, which are constantly disinfected, have microbial ecosystems living in them. Not just ending there from outside but actually living and multiplying. On Earth, there's no such thing as "devoid of life" unless we're talking of temperatures where the rock starts to melt.

Also, see the endangered species resolution.

"I think the types of areas that can be dumped should be decreased to only underground bunkers in case a civilian accidentally enters the area of contamination. If it is underground it is very hard for a civilian to get to and it is easy to tell the civilian of the risk."

That sounds like a good idea, however it doesn't sound feasible for lower-income nations. It would be cheaper to wall off the areas where waste is being disposed of in.

"Removing all life is even more expensive, and leaving the waste aboveground would defeat the point of trying to make it secure and environmentally friendly. You do understand that nuclear waste is dangerous for ten thousand years or more, depending on waste, possibly millions? Uranium especially is a toxic element all on its own, nevermind it also being radioactive. There is no safe limit of consumption for uranium."

[Zarnicovia nova]

"I think the types of areas that can be dumped should be decreased to only underground bunkers in case a civilian accidentally enters the area of contamination. If it is underground it is very hard for a civilian to get to and it is easy to tell the civilian of the risk."

That sounds like a good idea, however it doesn't sound feasible for lower-income nations. It would be cheaper to wall off the areas where waste is being disposed of in.

"How about we have the WA pay for the construction of the facilities."

[Middle Barael]

"And echoing what King Zarnicov said, perhaps also have the WA build nuclear storage facilities in these nations if they cannot afford to do so. In addition, why don't we allow member nations to pay the WA itself to accept their nuclear waste. Then the proceeds from that could be used to pay for the new nuclear storage facilites!" - Chloe Arborn, head of the Green Party and Chair of the ruling government coalition in MB

"Yes, that makes the most sense I feel!" - PM Marc Nuya

"Yes, I agree. We should allow WA Member Nations to pay the WA to take care of the nuclear waste for them. This is better than letting Nations give their nuclear waste to other Nations, as that way we'll prevent a repeat of the whole Canada-Philippines spat." - King Solomon

[Potted Plants United]

"And echoing what King Zarnicov said, perhaps also have the WA build nuclear storage facilities in these nations if they cannot afford to do so. In addition, why don't we allow member nations to pay the WA itself to accept their nuclear waste. Then the proceeds from that could be used to pay for the new nuclear storage facilites!" - Chloe Arborn, head of the Green Party and Chair of the ruling government coalition in MB

"Yes, that makes the most sense I feel!" - PM Marc Nuya

"Yes, I agree. We should allow WA Member Nations to pay the WA to take care of the nuclear waste for them. This is better than letting Nations give their nuclear waste to other Nations, as that way we'll prevent a repeat of the whole Canada-Philippines spat." - King Solomon

"If your nation is too poor to deal with nuclear waste, how did it manage to afford to build nuclear plants, given those are some of the most expensive pieces of infrastructure in existence? Cheaper more environmentally friendly options exist, have you given any consideration to such?"

[The Trollface Ethnostate]

"And echoing what King Zarnicov said, perhaps also have the WA build nuclear storage facilities in these nations if they cannot afford to do so. In addition, why don't we allow member nations to pay the WA itself to accept their nuclear waste. Then the proceeds from that could be used to pay for the new nuclear storage facilites!" - Chloe Arborn, head of the Green Party and Chair of the ruling government coalition in MB

"Yes, that makes the most sense I feel!" - PM Marc Nuya

"Yes, I agree. We should allow WA Member Nations to pay the WA to take care of the nuclear waste for them. This is better than letting Nations give their nuclear waste to other Nations, as that way we'll prevent a repeat of the whole Canada-Philippines spat." - King Solomon

Good idea. I'll put it in the 2nd Draft.