Nuclear Waste Reprocessing Bill (Law'd)

[MasterJedi]

Nuclear Waste Reprocessing Bill

Section 1: Atlasia recognizes the importance of responsible handling of nuclear waste, especially due to the likely increase of nuclear energy usage as a result of the "Nuclear Power Advancement Act".

Section 2: Atlasia believes that reprocessing of nuclear waste is a sensible alternative to direct disposal, and will provide aid to energy providers that choose to reprocess.

Section 3: A tax rebate equal to 75% of the difference in cost of reprocessing compared to current direct disposal will be provided as an incentive.
Spon: Sen. Franzl

[Franzl]

I am completely open to suggestions and comments, especially from Frodo, who suggested this in the first place a couple of months ago.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Not alot of specificity here, but I like this bill's intent.

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

what do you mean by Reprocessing?
What would that entail?

[Purple State]

I agree. As this is an especially complex and important issue, perhaps some definitions and increased specificity would be helpful.

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

also couldn't we use the methane gas from the landfills as well?

[MaxQue]

Nuclear waste reprocessing is degaging much more radioactivity in the outside world than usual nuclear plants.

[Franzl]

I know little to nothing about this topic, to be perfectly honest....that's why I was hoping that people that know more could make some suggestions

[MaxQue]

From what I read from different sources, there is a environmental problem. Two to three times more leukemia cases on young people from a 35-kilometers / 22-miles radius from La Hague in France, where there is a big reprocessing plant and the source is reliable.

[Hash]

I'm skeptic about this bill, mainly for the reasons expressed by Senator MaxQue. Around the Cap de la Hague in Normandy and Sellafield in England, you've had higher-than-normal leukemia cases.

In addition, while the Cap de la Hague is generally safe, you've had a number of accidents in Sellafield and nuclear waste from Sellafield has been found in northern Norway and has affected local fishing-based economies there.

[Franzl]

Well would you be open to transporting nuclear waste to a location where nobody lives in order to reprocess it, like somewhere in Nevada?

[Frodo]

I agree. As this is an especially complex and important issue, perhaps some definitions and increased specificity would be helpful.

Simply put -reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel (as I understand it) basically involves the extraction of still-usable uranium and plutonium, which can then be recycled for use as nuclear energy. This reduces the amount of nuclear waste that would have to be stored, though it leaves the more radioactive elements behind, which cannot just be buried -they must be stored deep underground.  

Here is a breakdown of what used nuclear fuel contains before being reprocessed, from the site at the bottom of this post:

Used fuel from light water reactors (at normal US burn-up levels) contains approximately:

95.6% uranium (U-232: 0.1-0.3%; U-234: 0.1-0.3%; U-235: 0.5-1.0%; U-236: 4-0.7%; balance: U-238)
2.9% stable fission products
0.9% plutonium
0.3% caesium & strontium (fission products)
0.1% iodine and technetium (fission products)
0.1% other long-lived fission products
0.1% minor actinides (americium, curium, neptunium)

Amendments dealing with the shortcomings of reprocessing are welcomed.

For more information, go to this link.  

[Fritz]

Well would you be open to transporting nuclear waste to a location where nobody lives in order to reprocess it, like somewhere in Nevada?

That sounds sensible.

[afleitch]

Well would you be open to transporting nuclear waste to a location where nobody lives in order to reprocess it, like somewhere in Nevada?

That sounds sensible.

Agreed. As long as it's not near sites of environmental sensitivity or anywhere near freshwater sources or expoitable water resources.

[MasterJedi]

Is there any work being done on this?

[Hash]

I propose the following amendment:

Section 4: Nuclear waste will be transported and reprocessed in areas with little inhabitants, no sites of environmental sensibility, and no nearby freshwater sources or exploitable water resources.
   

[Vepres]

Perhaps add a section providing funding for research related to nuclear reprocessing. After all, more research will only make it cheaper and/or very safe over time. Unless, of course, this was already done.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Is there any work being done on this?

I believe Max was doing some research on it, but he had to take a few days off to travel to Montreal and back.

[MaxQue]

Well, I agree with Hashemite's amendment.

[MasterJedi]

I hereby open up a vote on this amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Section 4: Nuclear waste will be transported and reprocessed in areas with little inhabitants, no sites of environmental sensibility, and no nearby freshwater sources or exploitable water resources.

Aye

[afleitch]

Aye

[Frodo]

I hereby open up a vote on this amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Section 4: Nuclear waste will be transported and reprocessed in areas with little inhabitants, no sites of environmental sensibility, and no nearby freshwater sources or exploitable water resources.

Aye

Is it possible to introduce a friendly mini-amendment rewording Sen. Hashemite's amendment so it could read:

'Section 4: Nuclear waste will be transported to and reprocessed only in areas with few inhabitants and limited environmental sensitivity, with no nearby sources of freshwater and no exploitable water resources.'

[Fritz]

Aye

[tmthforu94]

Aye

[MasterJedi]

I hereby open up a vote on this amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Section 4: Nuclear waste will be transported and reprocessed in areas with little inhabitants, no sites of environmental sensibility, and no nearby freshwater sources or exploitable water resources.

Aye

Is it possible to introduce a friendly mini-amendment rewording Sen. Hashemite's amendment so it could read:

'Section 4: Nuclear waste will be transported to and reprocessed only in areas with few inhabitants and limited environmental sensitivity, with no nearby sources of freshwater and no exploitable water resources.'

It can easily be done by myself once this vote is done. Just makes it easier since it only needs two more votes to pass too.