NationStates Jolt Archive

Today is the last day to approve it, and it needs only 48 more votes. Whoever cares for environment and the health of his citizens please support it.


"Description: The United Nations,

OBSERVING that many nations in the world, even UN members, use nuclear technology for civil and/or military purposes,

RECOGNIZING also the damages that can derive to environment from the use of such technology, mostly because of the production of huge amounts of radioactive wastes,

BELIEVING that in the interest of the health of both mankind and environment these radioactive wastes have to be stocked in safe places, where they cannot do harm to anybody,

MANDATES:

1: Whenever a radioactive waste is produced, the industry that produced it is responsible of its depositing in a safe place.

2: For "safe place" is intended a place that is:
-at least 20 Km far from every built-up area
-at least 50 meters under the surface of the ground
-protected by a bunker made of plumb (or any other
material that offers an adequate protection against radiations) with walls thick at least 2.5 meters, hermetically closed and with only one entrance
-signaled in an area of at least 5 Km
-made not accessible to anybody but the ones who work for the deposit of the wastes

3: The transport of the wastes from the place of production to the place of deposit must be as quick as possible but also as safe as possible, according to the national laws in matter of dangerous materials transport

4: If any accident happens during the transportation, the producer of the wastes has to recover the wastes and send them to the deposit site in the minimum time possible

5: The most appropriate vehicle to be used for the transport has to be chosen by the producer, according to the laws of the nation in matter of dangerous material transport

6: The route from the place of production to the place of deposit must pass at least 3 Km far from build-up areas if transported by ground, 4000 Km if transported by airplane and 50 Km if transported by ship

7: When a deposit area cannot contain any more wastes has to be kept under control by the producer until the most recent wastes will have ended their radioactivity

8: If for any reason the deposit area isn't safe anymore the producer has to move them to another safe area in the less amount of time

9: If for any reason the industry that produced the radioactive wastes closes, or fails or transfers to another country, the government of the nation takes control of the deposit area and is responsible of the radioactive wastes.

10: Radioactive wastes CAN'T get out the nation that produced them. If the route from the production area to the deposit area passes through another nation and for any reason the wastes remain in the nation that hasn't produced them, who is responsible of the wastes has to bring them to a safe area on his territory."

It's too bad you didn't bring it here first for a bit of comment and improvement. Perhaps we can help you with your second submission, in case this one fails.
6: The route from the place of production to the place of deposit must pass at least 3 Km far from build-up areas if transported by ground, 4000 Km if transported by airplane and 50 Km if transported by ship
For instance, why is radioactive waste safe at 3.1 km in a truck, but unsafe at 3999 km in an aircraft? And how are you going to dock your ships or land your aircraft, when virtually every harbor and airfield is located conveniently (within 50 km) to 'build-up areas'?
7: When a deposit area cannot contain any more wastes has to be kept under control by the producer until the most recent wastes will have ended their radioactivity
Radioactive materials may never end their radioactivity. They might drop to a safe level, but the nature of half-life means that it approaches but never reaches zero.
according to the laws of the nation in matter of dangerous material transport
If there are national laws, why do we need this one? Either define them for UN nations or drop the whole thing. By passing the buck to the nations, you've entirely emasculated this proposal.

This is a good idea for an international proposal, but it needs a lot of work and a 'bad science' workover. Why not get some help drafting a replacement.

Well, actually I had problems with the forum, so I managed to post it only today, I know that maybe it's too late but I hope it passes anyway.
Let me answer to your questions now.

For instance, why is radioactive waste safe at 3.1 km in a truck, but unsafe at 3999 km in an aircraft? And how are you going to dock your ships or land your aircraft, when virtually every harbor and airfield is located conveniently (within 50 km) to 'build-up areas'

It's not that 3999 mt is less safe than 4000 mt, it's only to put a security distance. About the second one, you are right, I shall correct it if I will propose it another time.

Radioactive materials may never end their radioactivity. They might drop to a safe level, but the nature of half-life means that it approaches but never reaches zero.

That's why, they never end their radioactivity. It's made in order to make sure that the area where the wastes lie is not forgotten and abandoned after maybe 50/60 years.

If there are national laws, why do we need this one? Either define them for UN nations or drop the whole thing. By passing the buck to the nations, you've entirely emasculated this proposal.

My intent was to establish the minimum security measures, if a nation has even stricter laws, it's their business. For example, in every nation the wastes must be at not less than 50 mt under the surface, but if a national law changes it to not less than 100 mt, good for them.

However, if this proposal don't pass I'll post here another one before proposing it ufficially, so that it will be made more accurate.

Today is the last day to approve it, and it needs only 48 more votes. Whoever cares for environment and the health of his citizens please support it.

I agree with what Fris said, but if you were having trouble accessing the forum, it's understandable that you might not have been able to bring this up for discussion beforehand.

"Description: The United Nations,

OBSERVING that many nations in the world, even UN members, use nuclear technology for civil and/or military purposes,

RECOGNIZING also the damages that can derive to environment from the use of such technology, mostly because of the production of huge amounts of radioactive wastes,

Not necessarily, nuclear fusion and even efficient nuclear fission do not necessarily produce "huge amounts of radioactive wastes". They are potentially harmful however, which is a point I'm sure we can all agree upon.

MANDATES:

1: Whenever a radioactive waste is produced, the industry that produced it is responsible of its depositing in a safe place.

2: For "safe place" is intended a place that is:
-at least 20 Km far from every built-up area
-at least 50 meters under the surface of the ground
-protected by a bunker made of plumb (or any other
material that offers an adequate protection against radiations) with walls thick at least 2.5 meters, hermetically closed and with only one entrance
-signaled in an area of at least 5 Km
-made not accessible to anybody but the ones who work for the deposit of the wastes

Je crois que vous-etes d'origine Francais, basee sur votre utilisation du mot "plumb", le mot en Anglais est "lead".

<switching back to English>

I like this clause, but I think one potential problem is that it doesn't mention ground-water issues. One has to be very careful when situating waste deposit sites that one doesn't disturb ground-water or aquifers, or pollute them to the detriment of the environment. Just a thought.

3: The transport of the wastes from the place of production to the place of deposit must be as quick as possible but also as safe as possible, according to the national laws in matter of dangerous materials transport

Some nations are sloppy and need international 'guidance' to follow the required safety standards. I'd set a standard for what constitutes safe, like you've done above.

5: The most appropriate vehicle to be used for the transport has to be chosen by the producer, according to the laws of the nation in matter of dangerous material transport

Same problem as above, in that a national standard of 'safe' may not be 'safe' under any objectively measured system.

6: The route from the place of production to the place of deposit must pass at least 3 Km far from build-up areas if transported by ground, 4000 Km if transported by airplane and 50 Km if transported by ship

I think the figures might need revising. For starters, if the extraction point is in an urban area, this means that, regrettably, waste can never be removed. And 4000km for planes and 50km for ships might not take into account the small sizes of some nations.

7: When a deposit area cannot contain any more wastes has to be kept under control by the producer until the most recent wastes will have ended their radioactivity

Perhaps (in light of Fris' concern) this should be phrased as "until their radioactivity has reached acceptable levels for public and environmental safety, as determined by X commission."

8: If for any reason the deposit area isn't safe anymore the producer has to move them to another safe area in the less amount of time

<Puts on Grammar Nazi Obersturmfuhrer cap> 'least'.

10: Radioactive wastes CAN'T get out the nation that produced them. If the route from the production area to the deposit area passes through another nation and for any reason the wastes remain in the nation that hasn't produced them, who is responsible of the wastes has to bring them to a safe area on his territory."

I understand the need to avoid making nations dumping grounds, but for nations that have no places to put their waste, it might be better for them to ship it overseas or dump elsewhere (i.e. offshore) rather than pollute their environment by default.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.