[THE SEQUEL!] Domestic Nuclear Waste Safety

[Erythrina]

The author simply did not feel the need to combat the ultra nationalist nations that would reject any regulations on intrastate waste management. It is certainly a step in the right direction.

There is no limitation on future WA regulations, the resolution exists to protect civilians, and the reason internal waste is not dealt with is because a resolution dealing with internal waste would face massive resistance from the ultra nationalist or sovereignty dependent nations.

Indeed. Now, onwards.

Domestic Nuclear Waste Safety

Environmental
All Business

This World Assembly,

Lauding recent efforts the World Assembly has taken in addressing the long-neglected issue of the safety of nuclear waste disposal;

Acknowledging that while there have been welcome first steps, the very complexity of the issue demands it be tackled in an incremental, responsible way;

Listening to genuine concerns voiced about nuclear waste “recycling”, not ignoring the fact that no recycling technology can completely transform nuclear waste into non-hazardous substances. To that end:

Mandates that no WA nation shall ever place storage facilities of domestically-produced nuclear waste near water sources, urban centers, areas with seismic activity, wildlife sanctuaries, international borders.

Prohibits WA nations from sending nuclear waste to other nations before processing that waste with the best recycling technologies available, and to the fullest extent, so as to minimize its risk to a minimum of toxicity.

The Nuclear Disaster Prevention Agency (NDPA) is hereby created within the Nuclear Disaster Response Organization (NDRO), which will have the following duties:

a) Inspect and ensure that any nuclear storage facilities a WA member may have comply with international norms;
b) Advise nations which have nuclear storage facilities as to the best recycling technologies available, and ensure that said technologies are being used to the fullest extent.

Be it clarified: nothing in this act shall preclude any nation to enforce measures towards nuclear waste storage that are more stringent than this act.

---

Here's hoping now some Ambassadors will not summarily dismiss (out of whatever) my frequent summons - regarding input - BEFORE this ever should get to a vote.

I've got high hopes!

Kisses from the witch!

p.s.:

There aren't any existing regulations. That's kind of my point here.

Wish granted. Hope you like it.

p.s.2: This is not the already ready text of a who-knows replacement, should any Repeal of General Assembly Resolution #116, Nuclear Waste Safety Act, actually pass.

[Eireann Fae]

Prohibits WA nations from sending nuclear waste to other nations before processing that waste with the best recycling technologies available, and to the fullest extent, so as to minimize its risk to a minimum of toxicity.

"It may be better," begins Rowan, speaking for Episky, "to allow WA nations to send nuclear waste to other nations more capable of recycling the material. The originating nation may not have the means, technologically or financially, to recycle the waste much at all themselves, and prefer to ship the waste abroad for such procedures. We appreciate your concern, and of course believe the material should be treated with the utmost caution while in transit. However, you must recognise that many nations do have their limits as to how 'safe' they can make the material on their own."

[Cathatis]

Prohibits WA nations from sending nuclear waste to other nations before processing that waste with the best recycling technologies available, and to the fullest extent, so as to minimize its risk to a minimum of toxicity.

"It may be better," begins Rowan, speaking for Episky, "to allow WA nations to send nuclear waste to other nations more capable of recycling the material. The originating nation may not have the means, technologically or financially, to recycle the waste much at all themselves, and prefer to ship the waste abroad for such procedures. We appreciate your concern, and of course believe the material should be treated with the utmost caution while in transit. However, you must recognise that many nations do have their limits as to how 'safe' they can make the material on their own."

"In which case, possibly a new clause requiring the technology to recycle the waste themselves before being permitted to build nuclear plants - a safer route, if economically harder" said Cathatian delegate, Mr. Yao Chi-Da

[Mallorea and Riva]

For the record I am not opposed to internal waste management. I simply did not find it a necessary addition when a second resolution could have been passed to cover it. Unfortunately the author's negligence on issues of recycling were reason enough for repeal. I will vote for, and hope for the best.

[Embolalia]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you think I have some sort of personal vendetta against you. I can assure you this is not the case. I don't think the original resolution was drafted thoroughly enough, and I believe I made a suggestion in a debate over a prior proposal that was taken the wrong way, but I don't have any specific dislike for you, your delegation, or your nation.

That said, I think that a second, separate set of regulations on exactly the same topic makes the regulatory situation far more confusing, and adds layers of unneeded law that would be avoided by a full repeal and redraft. If you think of a group trying to dispose of nuclear waste, they now have to consider two separate international laws, two separate international agencies, and two subtly different sets of regulations.

With my general objections noted, I'd like to note one particular clause which has me somewhat confused:

Listening to genuine concerns voiced about nuclear waste “recycling”, not ignoring the fact that no recycling technology can completely transform nuclear waste into non-hazardous substances.

I don't know that this strengthens your proposal. It sounds as much like you're backhandedly attacking the idea of recycling as you are encouraging it. Also, I don't know that calling attention to the deficiencies of the original would really benefit the supplement.

Prohibits WA nations from sending nuclear waste to other nations before processing that waste with the best recycling technologies available, and to the fullest extent, so as to minimize its risk to a minimum of toxicity.

Recycling is not an uncontroversial process. When I objected to the original resolution, it was not because I thought it should be mandatory, but because I thought it should be up to the individual nation. I know it sounds like I'm flip-flopping just to be obtrusive, but it's just the way it is.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Not all member countries will agree with recycling. Basically we are looking at making the nuclear waste safe. I think that is the simplest term. So Ms. Harper is suggesting:

Mandates that no WA nation shall ever place storage facilities of domestically-produced nuclear waste near water sources, urban settlements, areas with seismic activity, wildlife sanctuaries, areas of outstanding natural beauty or international borders.

Prohibits WA nations from sending nuclear waste to other nations without using the best processing technologies available, to the fullest extent, to make nuclear waste safe, so as to minimize its risk to a minimum of toxicity.

As for the category effect, I was wondering if it was meant to be Uranium mining (or is it too narrow)?

[Bears Armed]

Lauding recent efforts the World Assembly has taken in addressing the long-neglected issue of the safety of nuclear waste disposal;

OOC: 'House of Cards'?

[Neutonica]

The delegate of Neutonica applauds the spirit of the current proposal thus far, but has several unaddressed concerns:

Mandates that no WA nation shall ever place storage facilities of domestically-produced nuclear waste near water sources, urban centers, areas with seismic activity, wildlife sanctuaries, international borders.

From what the delegate of Neutonica knows about nuclear waste management, there are generally two forms of waste storage:
1)Underground, 2)Underwater

The clause above effectively eliminates the possibility of Option 2, and perhaps Option 1 as well for many member states which produce nuclear waste, because not every country has a desert to spare. Could someone clarify this, for this humble delegate?

a) Inspect and ensure that any nuclear storage facilities a WA member may have comply with international norms

Could there be specifications as to what these norms might be?

Further, is it possible to include a clause which allows for states which are more successful at dealing with nuclear waste to transfer some of their expertise to states which are less so, to improve the standard of nuclear waste technology across the board?

The delegate yields the floor.
Paul Mitter Jr.
Newly-appointed Special Representative to the World Assembly