NationStates

OOC: As per usual, I am not an expert in any topic I write a resolution about. I also wrote this in about 2 hours. Comments and critiques welcome

Safe Disposal of Nuclear Waste
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Safety

---

The World Assembly,

Knowing that many nations rely on nuclear power plants as a source of energy;

Aware that the production of nuclear energy produces radioactive waste that becomes dangerous if not properly disposed of;

Distraught that no such disposal has been previously regulated by the World Assembly;

Hereby enacts as follows:

1. In this resolution:
   
   1. “nuclear waste” is defined as the radioactive solid or liquid wastes resulting from nuclear fission, fusion, refinement, or any other process from which nuclear power is derived.
   2. ”radioactive contamination” is defined as the spread of radiation to any habitats, natural reserves, bodies of water, or atmospheres such that it would pose a significant danger to life or the environment.
2. The Nuclear Energy Safety Commission (NESC) must:
   
   1. Investigate methods of nuclear waste disposal and determine those considered safe by the following guidelines:
      
      1. Disposal methods must have little to no risk of radioactive contamination.
      2. Methods must include proper solidification, compaction and subsequent treatment of nuclear materials to prevent leaching of waste or radioactivity.
   2. Inspect prospective nuclear waste storage and burial sites to ensure they are geologically stable and at sufficiently lengthy proximity from areas at risk of radioactive contamination.
   3. Ensure that decommissioned nuclear reactors are properly dismantled, and any nuclear waste present is removed before said reactors can be demolished.
   4. Ensure that domestic transport of radioactive materials provides little to no foreseeable risk of leakage, thievery, or any form of radioactive contamination.
   5. Explore safer and more effective methods of nuclear waste disposal, recycling, reuse, and transmutation. Such studies must be publicly disseminated to member states.
3. Member states must:
   
   1. Only employ methods of safe nuclear disposal as defined by the NESC. Member states may submit reliable scientific research to the NESC to have a method of nuclear disposal be investigated for future safety standards.
   2. Ensure that radioactive contamination originating from their nation is reported to any foreign governments that are subject to foreseeable risk of that contamination spreading to or affecting their nation.

Three Five (I'm very good at counting things nods) very quick notes.

1. I don't see why the qualifier of "domestic" is necessary when describing transport in clause (d). If it's meant to be an overarching mandate, I'd nix it. (I admit this could be to avoid duplication of an earlier res and if so, sorry!)

2. What do the "better transmutation strategies" refer to in (e)? (An explainer for us very non-experts would be appreciated.)

3. I would number these clauses with the big committee clause being 1 and the member state clause being 2. (This is probably just personal preference.)

4. I don't believe the qualifier "scientific" is needed between "reliable" and "research" (pick either scientific or reliable, "reputable" maybe?) in 2(a).

5. Everything after the comma in 2(b) is likely extraneous. What matters more is "RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION!" not "RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION FROM A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT!"

Ambassador Alandra Kempt: I thank the Hulldomian voice of god for their sound advice. However, if I may talk back to god — I do so often anyway — there are a few comments I would like to return your way. To your first point, you were correct in your self assessment, the usage of “domestic” is to avoid any contradiction of existing legislation, namely GAR#116, which almost solely rules on foreign and international transport of nuclear waste. On transmutation, that refers to the process of bombarding generally High Level nuclear waste with neutrons in a reactor or accelerator. The ensuing radionuclides have their half-lives (and therefore their radioactivity) severely weakened, allowing for fully safe storage within relatively only a few years. While some have branded it anywhere from extremely difficult to impossible to pull off, with more research it could become a very viable and much safer method of nuclear waste disposal that actually kills the radioactivity of HLW instead of simply burying it for the radioactivity to dissipate itself. To your third point, I understand the argument, just for being able to better refer to areas of the resolution. Consider it done. And finally your fourth point, also a fair qualm, I wonder if I could just define contamination somewhere in the resolution to simplify everything. I’ll look into it, thank you. Thank you… disembodied voice from the heavens, you do service to your nation.

-AK

W, while discreetly updating his stock portfolio: "This seems like a logical subject for further legislation. I recommend Regulation | Energy as the category/AoE. One second... okay, that's all in order. Need to make a quick call."

[The NESC must explore] safer methods of nuclear waste disposal, better recycling and reuse for nuclear fuel, and better transmutation strategies.

"I'm back, sorry about that. What would the NESC do with this information? A provision that the committee disseminate this information to members could be a good addition."

[Members must contact] all foreign or domestic entities that may be affected by radioactive contamination of any kind, whether that be due to improper nuclear waste disposal, nuclear meltdown, or any other source of contamination.

"The wording needs to be tightened up here. As it's currently written, this clause would require every member nation to contact a random nuclear plant in a non-member nation they have no involvement with if that plant has a meltdown. Then contact every single entity that may be affected by the radioactive particles getting in the air. The clause also doesn't say what members contacting these entities actually entails- what's meant by "contact"? What are they contacting them about? What if the entity in question is already aware of the potential contamination?"

I will note that "radioactive contamination of any kind" includes non-harmful radioactivity exhibited by a great variety of everyday things. For instance, radioactive carbon-14 is in practically all things with significant amounts of carbon, including all organic matter.

Wallenburg wrote:I will note that "radioactive contamination of any kind" includes non-harmful radioactivity exhibited by a great variety of everyday things. For instance, radioactive carbon-14 is in practically all things with significant amounts of carbon, including all organic matter.

That interpretation would require a very unusual definition of contamination.

Haganham wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:I will note that "radioactive contamination of any kind" includes non-harmful radioactivity exhibited by a great variety of everyday things. For instance, radioactive carbon-14 is in practically all things with significant amounts of carbon, including all organic matter.

That interpretation would require a very unusual definition of contamination.

Ambassador Alandra Kempt: “Just to quickly butt in before this discussion can get too technical, I’ve already made a note on my chalkboard to define contamination given the amount of times I use it and the need for if to be more properly specified so as to prevent any odd loopholes.”

Oh and to the Cretoxian ambassadors points, I plan to more fully explore my options in those areas and I will respond once I have shored up those issues.

Haganham wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:I will note that "radioactive contamination of any kind" includes non-harmful radioactivity exhibited by a great variety of everyday things. For instance, radioactive carbon-14 is in practically all things with significant amounts of carbon, including all organic matter.

That interpretation would require a very unusual definition of contamination.

It would not. While not all radioactive objects are contamination, all organic matter is radioactive. Thus, things like kitchen waste that falls out of a garbage truck are included under the umbrella of "radioactive contamination of any kind".

Wallenburg wrote:

Haganham wrote:That interpretation would require a very unusual definition of contamination.

It would not. While not all radioactive objects are contamination, all organic matter is radioactive. Thus, things like kitchen waste that falls out of a garbage truck are included under the umbrella of "radioactive contamination of any kind".

“Hmm… you make a solid point. I’ll keep that in mind. Perhaps I can instead define “dangerous radioactive contamination”. Oh and also I love the new flag!”

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: The flag is a metagame. lights CHONKing cigarette We do not metagame in this establishment, young lady. I had no idea they turfed Aramantha and Allie out, anyway. As for the proposal itself, it is even more objectionable than the Nuclear Waste Safety Act, which is remarkable given that the latter makes sweeping assumptions about the ability of certain nations to handle imported plastics waste.
There is no reason - for example - why member states should have to follow committee recommendations on how to dispose of nuclear waste subject to certain criteria, especially when the World Assembly can require the individual member state to follow those criteria for itself with similar benefit. I would, in fact, argue that most of what the Nuclear Energy Safety Commission is being asked to do in your draft can be readily done by members.

“Miss, you did not mention in Clause 2c how the WA will fund the dismantling of nuclear reactors if certain nations are economically unable to do so, or if an economic calamity or depression occurs. In addition, I have some concerns about Clause 3b. First, governments can easily contact their own people, but contacting foreign people may be more tedious for the busy government officials. Also, instead of putting down ‘domestic and foreign entities’ in the final proposal, you should shorten it to ‘all entities’ to make things more concise. Thanks!”

-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

I suggest having the Category be health and the Area of Effect be bioethics.

Cretox State wrote:W, while discreetly updating his stock portfolio: "This seems like a logical subject for further legislation. I recommend Regulation | Energy as the category/AoE. One second... okay, that's all in order. Need to make a quick call."

[The NESC must explore] safer methods of nuclear waste disposal, better recycling and reuse for nuclear fuel, and better transmutation strategies.

"I'm back, sorry about that. What would the NESC do with this information? A provision that the committee disseminate this information to members could be a good addition."

[Members must contact] all foreign or domestic entities that may be affected by radioactive contamination of any kind, whether that be due to improper nuclear waste disposal, nuclear meltdown, or any other source of contamination.

"The wording needs to be tightened up here. As it's currently written, this clause would require every member nation to contact a random nuclear plant in a non-member nation they have no involvement with if that plant has a meltdown. Then contact every single entity that may be affected by the radioactive particles getting in the air. The clause also doesn't say what members contacting these entities actually entails- what's meant by "contact"? What are they contacting them about? What if the entity in question is already aware of the potential contamination?"

Ambassador Alandra Kempt: An extra note of dissemination has been hastily made, but a better integrated one will persist in the upcoming second draft, thank you. As to category, I don't disagree you've got a solid point, and it will likely be that or Environmental-All Businesses; I'll decide upon publication of the second draft. You make a solid point on 3b, I will work to improve it in the second draft, thank you.

Tinhampton wrote:Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: The flag is a metagame. lights CHONKing cigarette We do not metagame in this establishment, young lady. I had no idea they turfed Aramantha and Allie out, anyway. As for the proposal itself, it is even more objectionable than the Nuclear Waste Safety Act, which is remarkable given that the latter makes sweeping assumptions about the ability of certain nations to handle imported plastics waste.
There is no reason - for example - why member states should have to follow committee recommendations on how to dispose of nuclear waste subject to certain criteria, especially when the World Assembly can require the individual member state to follow those criteria for itself with similar benefit. I would, in fact, argue that most of what the Nuclear Energy Safety Commission is being asked to do in your draft can be readily done by members.

Ambassador Alandra Kempt: Are you suggesting I have no eyes ambassador? I object to your baseless claims of metagaming - perhaps you don't go through the rigorous process of research before you speak to other ambassadors, but a good ambassador connects with other diplomats on a deeper level than you're used to I suppose. And with all due respect (which given your rudeness is really quite little), I have as much a right to speak for "this establishment" as you do. I see no secretariat title painted on your forehead. Really quite rude, sometimes I cannot believe the manners of this place.

As for your actual qualms with my legislation, they are laughable and demonstrate a complete lack of understanding as to the actual point of this resolution. I don't currently reside in Sophia, but let's say I am your neighbor, yes? I don't suppose you would appreciate it much if I decided to take on the bright idea of shooting nuclear waste into space, only to have it explode in the atmosphere, completely irradiating both of our nations and killing every single one of our combined citizens instantaneously. That is a genuine possibility we live with without any sort of safety regulation on how your neighbors dispose of one of the most dangerous substances known to this council. Why would we trust individual member states to have a deep and nuanced knowledge of nuclear waste disposal? Can we really trust every nation in the world to do their true due diligence and ensure they have considered every factor and every fraction of risk management? In what world are unverifiable scientists preferable to ones trained and chosen specially for this task?

Anne of Cleves in TNP wrote:“Miss, you did not mention in Clause 2c how the WA will fund the dismantling of nuclear reactors if certain nations are economically unable to do so, or if an economic calamity or depression occurs. In addition, I have some concerns about Clause 3b. First, governments can easily contact their own people, but contacting foreign people may be more tedious for the busy government officials. Also, instead of putting down ‘domestic and foreign entities’ in the final proposal, you should shorten it to ‘all entities’ to make things more concise. Thanks!”

-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

Ambassador Alandra Kempt: I'm not sure you understand the processes that go into the dismantling and decommissioning of nuclear reactors. This resolution does not act as a fund for nations to purchase or maintain their nuclear power grids. And in case you were curious, do you know how expensive it is to create a nuclear power plant? Neither do I because I do not know your nation's exchange rate, but I assure you, it is not cheap. Any nation that has the resources to invest in nuclear power also has the resources to decontaminate a facility and remove any radioactive materials. As to economic depression, there is little reason why nuclear energy should ever be affected by that, especially dismantling old reactors. I don't understand how these two points would even intersect. Are you in such a deep economic depression that you can't safely remove radioactive waste from your power plants? In that case why are you demolishing it? How would you have the money for that?

You are not the first to take issue with my admittedly poor wording on clause 3c, it will be reworked before I put out the next draft, I assure you.

Platoon of Peace wrote:I suggest having the Category be health and the Area of Effect be bioethics.

Ambassador Alandra Kempt: That does not make a lot of logical sense, does it? As the WA explains it - before their propagandist hibby-jibby gets in the way - bioethics refers to "setting ethical international standards for healthcare and research". This has very little to do with healthcare and research. It will much more likely fall into either Regulation-Energy or Environmental-All Businesses, and I will likely choose between the two when I publish the second draft here.

Paul Montenegro, fourth-in-line to the post of Delegate-Ambassador: Please excuse Smith's behaviour; I've been repeatedly telling him over the past few days not to start "puffing up suspicious things" but he just wouldn't listen. He didn't even tell me if it was cannabis or not.

Smith: IT WASN'T MARIJUANA! AGAIN!!! STOP IT! I just have a lot of friends! And yes. What was I going to say? I think I've remembered - yes, Ambassador, you seem to think that a decommitteefied Safe Disposal of Nuclear Waste would look like this:

I argue that it would look more like this:

For more than a decade, members have been disposing of imported nuclear waste in compliance with the Nuclear Waste Safety Act without being ordered to use particular means of disposal by a committee. All the relevant guidance is contained in the resolution itself. Why can they not be trusted to dispose of domestic nuclear waste with similar guidance?

Tinhampton wrote:Paul Montenegro, fourth-in-line to the post of Delegate-Ambassador: Please excuse Smith's behaviour; I've been repeatedly telling him over the past few days not to start "puffing up suspicious things" but he just wouldn't listen. He didn't even tell me if it was cannabis or not.

Smith: IT WASN'T MARIJUANA! AGAIN!!! STOP IT! I just have a lot of friends! And yes. What was I going to say? I think I've remembered - yes, Ambassador, you seem to think that a decommitteefied Safe Disposal of Nuclear Waste would look like this:

1. In this resolution, “nuclear waste” is defined as the radioactive solid or liquid wastes resulting from nuclear fission, fusion, refinement, or any other process from which nuclear power is derived.
2. Member states may dispose of nuclear waste however they want, whenever they want, wherever they want, whyever they want, through whichever means they want without consequences, subject to prior and standing resolutions.
3. Member states must contact all foreign or domestic entities that may be affected by radioactive contamination of any kind, whether that be due to alternative modes of nuclear waste disposal, nuclear meltdown, or any other source of contamination.

I argue that it would look more like this:

1. In this resolution, “nuclear waste” is defined as the radioactive solid or liquid wastes resulting from nuclear fission, fusion, refinement, or any other process from which nuclear power is derived.
2. Member states must:
   
   1. Dispose of nuclear waste through methods which must:
      
      1. Have little to no risk of radioactive contamination of habitats, natural reserves, bodies of water, or the atmosphere,
      2. Include proper solidification, compaction and subsequent treatment of nuclear materials to prevent leaching of waste or radioactivity,
   2. Inspect prospective nuclear waste storage and burial sites to ensure they are geologically stable and at sufficiently low risk of contamination of habitats, natural reserves, bodies of water, or the atmosphere,
   3. Ensure that decommissioned nuclear reactors are properly dismantled, and that any nuclear waste present is disposed of in accordance with Article 2a before said reactors can be demolished, and
   4. Ensure that all domestic transport of radioactive materials provide little to no foreseeable risk of leakage, thievery, or any other form of radioactive contamination.
3. The Nuclear Energy Safety Commission must research methods of nuclear waste disposal, recycling, reuse, and transmutation which are safer and more effective than those currently in use, and must disseminate this research publicly to member states. In addition, it must provide relevant assistance on request to member states who, despite making a good-faith effort to comply with any part of Article 2, cannot do so.
4. Members must contact all foreign or domestic entities that may be affected by radioactive contamination of any kind which occurs within their jurisdiction, whether that be due to improper nuclear waste disposal, nuclear meltdown, or any other source of contamination.

For more than a decade, members have been disposing of imported nuclear waste in compliance with the Nuclear Waste Safety Act without being ordered to use particular means of disposal by a committee. All the relevant guidance is contained in the resolution itself. Why can they not be trusted to dispose of domestic nuclear waste with similar guidance?

Ambassador Alandra Kempt: And yet your proposed draft remains free of oversight of any kind. How are we expected to trust that every member state in the WA has competent enough scientists, geologists, and other nuclear experts to fulfill an actually proper guarantee of risk prevention? A committee with trained experts is the only way we could ensure that the best possible prevention has been actually achieved. Some member states rush into nuclear power and it is our job to ensure they are not an extraordinary danger to everyone around them.

We have been updated to a second draft

Just had a quick read but maybe merge the first two clauses? I don't like 3 clause openers ngl.

Fachumonn wrote:Just had a quick read but maybe merge the first two clauses? I don't like 3 clause openers ngl.

Eh no real reason to. It’s fine as-is

What does "Geologically Stable" mean in 2b?

Fachumonn wrote:What does "Geologically Stable" mean in 2b?

OOC: Places far away from fault lines ie places where the ground is stable and not prone to earthquakes or underground natural disasters that would cause problems when burying nuclear waste. Take, for instance, America’s Yucca Mountain which - before political bs got in the way - was the proposed site for nuclear waste disposal for a couple of decades. It’s far from human population and it’s geologically stable so it won’t have any underground sites collapse during earthquakes or anything to that degree.

I swear this has been done...

Minskiev wrote:I swear this has been done...

Nope, the only such extant legislation refers to only the international transport of nuclear waste

Bump!

As a representative of a nation skeptical of nuclear power usage I also claim no level of expertise on this subject, however a couple comments:

(2e) Explore safer and more effective methods of nuclear waste disposal, recycling, reuse, and transmutation. Such studies are public and disseminated to member states.

This may just be me, however the second sentence here seems to come out of nowhere and I am left unsure of the context; is the dissemination of such studies mandatory for the NESC, if so it feels a word or two may be missing.

(3b) Ensure that neighboring governments are foreseeably informed of any radioactive contamination originating from their nation that may spread to or affect those neighboring nations.

Given the massive potential of danger from a large scale contamination, nations that are slightly further than merely neighboring may appreciate such advance information as well, especially in regions where many smaller nations stitch together a tapestry of borders.

Fhaengshia wrote:As a representative of a nation skeptical of nuclear power usage I also claim no level of expertise on this subject, however a couple comments:

(2e) Explore safer and more effective methods of nuclear waste disposal, recycling, reuse, and transmutation. Such studies are public and disseminated to member states.

This may just be me, however the second sentence here seems to come out of nowhere and I am left unsure of the context; is the dissemination of such studies mandatory for the NESC, if so it feels a word or two may be missing.

(3b) Ensure that neighboring governments are foreseeably informed of any radioactive contamination originating from their nation that may spread to or affect those neighboring nations.

Given the massive potential of danger from a large scale contamination, nations that are slightly further than merely neighboring may appreciate such advance information as well, especially in regions where many smaller nations stitch together a tapestry of borders.

Ambassador Alandra Kempt: Thank you ambassador, these are both genuine problems with the draft. They should be fixed now.