[Legality Challenge] Long-Term Storage Of Produced Waste

[Mancheseva City]

The General Assembly,

Recognizing that there have been numerous resolutions concerning produced waste storage,

Noting that so far, even with nuclear, chemical and biological resolutions, there has been no catch-all resolution passed to this very day,

Acknowledging that despite all other resolutions' efforts, the problem of non-contained waste is still prevalent today,

Wishing to remedy this situation and further strengthen our goal to alleviate and eliminate produced waste that can harm people and the environment alike,

Further recognizing that although no issue can ever disappear permanently, steps can be taken to alleviate it to the very point where it is no longer significantly affecting our society,

Hereby defines:

PRODUCED WASTE - Any kind of waste discharged from factories and other industrial zones that has the potential to become a problem, e.g. toxic waste, nuclear waste, polluted waste, etc.

BUSINESS - For the purposes of this resolution, any business, private or government-owned, engaging in manufacturing or production of any kinds of goods, or otherwise its operations requiring to operate an Industrial Facility (see definition below.)

STORAGE FACILITY - Facilities carefully constructed and certified to store produced waste inside it without further environmental contamination and destruction for a long period of time.

INDUSTRIAL FACILITY - Any facility owned privately or by the government used to manufacture or produce anything, that can hold the potential of discharging produced waste.

NGOs - Initialism for Non-Government Organizations, of which are private organizations dedicating funding, resources and time to any important cause, in this case the ensured long-term storage of produced waste.

Hereby legislates that:

All private businesses utilizing industrial facilities such as factories, must employ at least one storage facility, whether overground or as a bunker. Preexisting but certified facilities are allowed to be utilized by businesses.

In the event that businesses cannot acquire a storage facility, national governments and NGOs are encouraged to provide for them by constructing facilities or bunkers around their country.

Storage facilities must remain certified as safe for long-term containment, with a minimum standard of 70 years. They must be able to store at least 7,000 metric tons of waste and maintained professionally up until its intended duration.

NGOs and national governments are encouraged to invest time and resources in assisting in the effort to an non-contained waste-free world.

Measures must be taken in order to reduce waste discharge from industrial facilities of businesses.

Penalties in the form of monetary fines shall be distributed to businesses that do not take the necessary measures to store waste properly, even if they are offered facilities from an NGO or a national government.

Subsidization from the World Assembly and willing governments of member-states are encouraged, in order to advance towards the goal of a non-contained waste-free world.

Governments must also take measures to provide for their own industrial state businesses to have their long-term storage facilities of produced waste.

Occasional repairs updates, or overhauls if need be, to the storage facilities shall take place in order to maintain their upkeep as they age.

There is no forum thread for this proposal, as far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong

Category: Proposals must be submitted under a category. The proposal's content must align with the chosen category.

Regulation -- A resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public.

Safety: Enforce stringent regulations to keep the average bystander from physical harm.

I believe that the resolution does not "enforce stringent regulations to keep the average bystander from physical harm".

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=37305879#p37305879 - that is the only Safety resolution to date, so there is not much precedent, but I do believe this sets a standard of "stringent regulations", while the proposal I'm challenging only indirectly protects the average bystander - the protection is a side effect rather than the direct goal of the proposal.

The only time this proposal mentions anything that has to do with people is in the preamble, where it states that "waste can harm people", which, in my opinion, is not enough to say that its goal is to protect people. No other clause in the proposal even mandates that all waste is stored, only mandating that businesses "employ" at least one storage facility, and that "penalties are distributed to them" if they do not "take the necessary measures", none of which, again, takes steps to protect the public. Maybe I am going too much into the in-character things, but coupled with what I said in the previous paragraph, this, again, does not enforce "stringent regulations", as it should according to the Category rule.

In addition, a similar, now-repealed resolution, [url="Landfill Regulation Act"]https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=38074232#p38074232[/url], had a different category - I realise that the rule is "any suitable category", but I believe this would be the only suitable category for such a proposal

[Big Boyz]

Which rule specifically is being violated here? I don't see the category being an issue, since they have already established in the preamble that waste products can pose a health hazard.

[Wrapper]

This is very clearly Environmental/All Businesses, and not Safety.

Signed,
Your friendly neighborhood EHS Engineer.

[Ardiveds]

Which rule specifically is being violated here? I don't see the category being an issue, since they have already established in the preamble that waste products can pose a health hazard.

OOC: I’m fairly certain, category is based on operative clauses not the preamble.

[Mancheseva City]

I think the rule is based on the whole proposal, rather - even if the operative clause isn't a perfect fit for the category, the preamble might save the proposal at times. But IMO this preamble doesn't do a good job of explaining why this belongs in Regulation: Safety so it can't help here

[Honeydewistania]

ignore me lol

[Outer Sparta]

I think the rule is based on the whole proposal, rather - even if the operative clause isn't a perfect fit for the category, the preamble might save the proposal at times. But IMO this preamble doesn't do a good job of explaining why this belongs in Regulation: Safety so it can't help here

Interestingly it isn't drafted on the forums which if it were, somebody else could have pointed out a discrepancy of the AoE.

[Bananaistan]

Precedent says any suitable category is acceptable. Safe storage of waste would seem to me to be a safety issue as well as an environmental issue. I'm very much leaning towards legal.

[Wrapper]

Precedent says any suitable category is acceptable. Safe storage of waste would seem to me to be a safety issue as well as an environmental issue. I'm very much leaning towards legal.

I vehemently disagree. The storage of waste is not a safety issue, it's an environmental issue. The proposal forces all businesses to spend money on protecting the environment from the release of waste. The fact that it protects people from the hazards, as with all environmental resolutions, is secondary. A couple examples IRL: in the USA, the storage of waste falls under the EPA, not OSHA; in Canada, waste storage laws fall under the 1999 Canadian Environmental Protection Act, not labor/safety regulations; in the UK, waste storage laws were part of The Environmental Protection Act 1990; etc. This is so very clearly environmental, any other suggestion makes my brain hurt. And you don't want my brain to hurt, do you?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Precedent says any suitable category is acceptable. Safe storage of waste would seem to me to be a safety issue as well as an environmental issue. I'm very much leaning towards legal.

I vehemently disagree. The storage of waste is not a safety issue, it's an environmental issue. The proposal forces all businesses to spend money on protecting the environment from the release of waste. The fact that it protects people from the hazards, as with all environmental resolutions, is secondary. A couple examples IRL: in the USA, the storage of waste falls under the EPA, not OSHA; in Canada, waste storage laws fall under the 1999 Canadian Environmental Protection Act, not labor/safety regulations; in the UK, waste storage laws were part of The Environmental Protection Act 1990; etc. This is so very clearly environmental, any other suggestion makes my brain hurt. And you don't want my brain to hurt, do you?

If your brain doesn't hurt after years and years on this site generally, including as a moderator, I shudder to think what could make it do so.

From a statistical viewpoint, however... I am reluctantly leaning towards the challenge being correct. Reg/Safety is intended to advance public safety: building and construction codes, emergency responders' procedures, and the like. Few manufacturers do or would spit their liquid waste products directly into the street, if only for the public relations hassle; meanwhile anything stopping them from disposal in municipal sewerage systems is clearly environmental in nature. This proposal advances large, immediate construction costs, not mild planning and red tape hassles that incrementally increase future construction costs (the latter being properly Reg/Safety).

I have been trying to be open-minded and not tight-assed about proper category, but this seems to be a bridge too far.

[Imperium Anglorum]

This proposal advances large, immediate construction costs, not mild planning and red tape hassles that incrementally increase future construction costs (the latter being properly Reg/Safety).

I don't think this is a good framework for determining what is safety. Eg if you said 'no asbestos in buildings', there would have to be a massive and immediate refitting of something like half the building stock in most developed countries to rip the stuff out at enormous cost while – because nobody builds buildings with asbestos in them anymore – there would be effectively no change in construction costs looking forward. Yet intuitively I think most people would still think of 'no asbestos in buildings' as a safety regulation. Given the proposal speaks of a 'goal to alleviate and eliminate produced waste that can harm people...' and sequestering waste would in fact serve that purpose, there is an argument for a category match. It's not the strongest argument ever but it doesn't have to be.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

This proposal advances large, immediate construction costs, not mild planning and red tape hassles that incrementally increase future construction costs (the latter being properly Reg/Safety).

I don't think this is a good framework for determining what is safety. Eg if you said 'no asbestos in buildings', there would have to be a massive and immediate refitting of something like half the building stock in most developed countries to rip the stuff out at enormous cost while – because nobody builds buildings with asbestos in them anymore – there would be effectively no change in construction costs looking forward. Yet intuitively I think most people would still think of 'no asbestos in buildings' as a safety regulation.

This is a fair point as far as it goes; but then all we've done is dispose of something unrelated. The instant proposal is seeking to sequester waste products - substances that cannot profitably be turned into useful materials - where they can do no harm. It is not seeking to prohibit or regulate the use of harmful materials so as to minimize harm.

Given the proposal speaks of a 'goal to alleviate and eliminate produced waste that can harm people...' and sequestering waste would in fact serve that purpose, there is an argument for a category match. It's not the strongest argument ever but it doesn't have to be.

A safety regulation would relate to precautions for handling and processing the waste materials, and to individual exposure to waste in its stored, installed, or "in use" state. Since this seeks to eliminate handling (and, eventually, eliminate the materials themselves), Environmental is a better category. Is it the only suitable category? I didn't think so in the queue. But I can't see otherwise now.

The operative text of the proposal goes:

Hereby legislates that:

All private businesses utilizing industrial facilities such as factories, must employ at least one storage facility, whether overground or as a bunker. Preexisting but certified facilities are allowed to be utilized by businesses.

In the event that businesses cannot acquire a storage facility, national governments and NGOs are encouraged to provide for them by constructing facilities or bunkers around their country.

Storage facilities must remain certified as safe for long-term containment, with a minimum standard of 70 years. They must be able to store at least 7,000 metric tons of waste and maintained professionally up until its intended duration.

NGOs and national governments are encouraged to invest time and resources in assisting in the effort to an non-contained waste-free world.

Measures must be taken in order to reduce waste discharge from industrial facilities of businesses.

Penalties in the form of monetary fines shall be distributed to businesses that do not take the necessary measures to store waste properly, even if they are offered facilities from an NGO or a national government.

Subsidization from the World Assembly and willing governments of member-states are encouraged, in order to advance towards the goal of a non-contained waste-free world.

Governments must also take measures to provide for their own industrial state businesses to have their long-term storage facilities of produced waste.

Occasional repairs updates, or overhauls if need be, to the storage facilities shall take place in order to maintain their upkeep as they age.

The term "storage facility" in the text is defined to be capable of containing waste without "environmental contamination." No differentiation is made between the safety of nearby people (workers, bystanders, or others) and the environment broadly. In neither the definitions nor the operative clauses is any reference made to individual or group exposure to waste, precautions for moving/shipping/handling/recycling, or any possible release of waste other than the broad catch-all "potential to become a problem." The only clear references to the release of waste materials are "discharge" and the phrase "environmental contamination" in the definition of "storage facility."

While you're not wrong that one could write a Reg/Safety resolution on waste materials, this proposal doesn't appear to have any safety regulations, only environmental ones. While an International Security resolution mandating free firearms for all persons would certainly have an effect on the ability of the poorest people in society to obtain the necessities of life, that would not by itself make it a Social Justice resolution. Similarly, the instant proposal's protection of individual people from exposure to industrial waste doesn't make an Environmental resolution a Reg/Safety law.

Clearly Environmental is a better fit. Is Reg/Safety a reasonable fit? I'm not seeing it anymore.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The way I view reasonable is in the same way Sciongrad wrote it:

A [category] selection is reasonable if there is a plausible argument that any of the resolution’s significant effects fit within the category. For the the purposes of this test, an effect is significant when it is not trivial or speculative.

It isn't a trivial or speculative effect that sequestering, I don't know, dioxin into a bunch of underground bunkers would be better for safety. If dioxin were to be unsafely released, it would necessarily have to go into the environment (the environment also being a place where people live). I think the proposal is about as stupid as Hoxha's bunker project but it definitely has more than a trivial or speculative effect on safety: requiring that businesses put their waste in a bunch of bunkers or get fined would mean less uncontained waste. If that waste is dioxin then something like Seveso wouldn't have happened.

[Separatist Peoples]

Precedent says any suitable category is acceptable. Safe storage of waste would seem to me to be a safety issue as well as an environmental issue. I'm very much leaning towards legal.

This is my take, as well. Environmentally damaging waste is often also health damaging waste. Either could apply, and I am unwilling to second guess the author's assessment of the best category when they are both adequate.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I have been trying to be open-minded and not tight-assed about proper category...

Precedent says any suitable category is acceptable. Safe storage of waste would seem to me to be a safety issue as well as an environmental issue. I'm very much leaning towards legal.

This is my take, as well. Environmentally damaging waste is often also health damaging waste. Either could apply, and I am unwilling to second guess the author's assessment of the best category when they are both adequate.

With the proviso that not all Env resolutions dealing with chemical or radiological toxins can be called Reg/Safety willy-nilly simply because persons happen to be on the same side of any procedures, structures, and requirements as the rest of the environment, I suppose I could accept this. I reiterate that there is no mention here of any actual safety protocols for minimizing exposure of these materials to plant workers or bystanders. A company would be within its rights to forego placing radiation shielding on the outside of a vehicle transporting nuclear waste under the terms of this resolution. GAR #7 doesn't mandate such shielding as long as the drivers themselves are protected (maybe because that would be an environmental regulation and outside the scope of a workplace safety act, hmmm? Yet bystanders are still at risk even if the workers - and the environment - aren't! Hmm, I wonder how we could solve this problem and plug this loophole...), and in fact invites further safety regulations; meanwhile GAR #116 says nothing about safety precautions during transport beyond simply that waste may not leak (waste, not radiation!) or be diverted.

So in the spirit of maximizing GA activity, I suppose I can call this legal under the "any suitable category" standard we've adopted. But it is awfully shitty precedent.

[Groot]

So in the spirit of maximizing GA activity, I suppose I can call this legal under the "any suitable category" standard we've adopted. But it is awfully shitty precedent.

I agree. That is an awfully shitty precedent.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

So in the spirit of maximizing GA activity, I suppose I can call this legal under the "any suitable category" standard we've adopted. But it is awfully shitty precedent.

I agree. That is an awfully shitty precedent.

Indeed. I appreciate trying to loosen up the ridiculous levels of lawyering that were occurring, but a precedent that says authors are free to ignore the blatantly obvious appropriate category in favour of any possible category the author can tangentially justify no matter how tortured is too far the other direction. Accepting this proposal as a safety proposal really blurs the line between what could and I would argue ought to be distinct categories of regulation.

[Separatist Peoples]

Not that it matters, but this is very much a "how long is a pie e of string" argument (props to Banana for that phrase). This isn't game changing precedent. GenSec shouldn't be picking the best category out of a set, and we already established that. The proposal has objective impacts on both the environment and on public safety. In this case, enough of us thought the justification was enough to make it legal. That is a judgment call based on context.

Even if we did get it wrong (and I'm not convinced we did), it isn't going to make the kind of legality impact folks are pretending it will moving forward.

[Wrapper]

Very well. But if I wake up with another headache, I'm blaming you guys.

[Amerinum]

Hello everyone,

I must say that while I disagree with storage, I agree with disposal. Do you leave [REDACTED] in the toilet and not flush?

In general, any form of produced waste that has no recyclable value should be discarded and completely removed from the world.

Deep Geological Disposal is ideal for radioactive/nuclear waste. Essentially it can be used to discard other waste as well. When compared to sending rockets to the sun, DGD is more cost-effective for governments.

Businesses that produce such hazardous waste should be refined at Special Material Recycling Facilities. SMRFs would recycle the waste at an elemental level; Reverse Waste Engineering or Elemental Engineering. Any component that is considered to have a negative impact on the planet, will be contained and processed for DGD.

I think that's the way to go forward with this.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

<snip>

Welcome to the World Assembly! Thanks for your input. Please be aware that legality challenge threads are not the place for arguing the merits of a proposal, only whether or not they break any of the rules for proposals (see link in my signature below). Since this proposal was already submitted, the only way to make changes at this point is to convince the author to withdraw and modify it. You can perhaps do that in this thread over here, but considering the author doesn't seem to have posted a draft anywhere before submitting, I doubt you'll have much luck.

Edit: it's at vote, so I don't believe it can be withdrawn at this point. Everything is moot!

[Araraukar]

Given the new approach to category rule, how about the strength test? AoE proposals need minimum of Significant strength. Do you only look at clauses that fit the declared category/AoE and see if their strength passes the muster?