Nuclear Power Safety Accord (IDEA/DRAFT)

[Bergnovinaia]

So, in the wake of the potential disaster in Japan, I decided to author this... Firstly, before you comment, I was wondering what people think in terms of if it does or does not duplicate the following: GA #60. GA #60 is rather vague, so I'm curious to hear your thoughts.



Nuclear Power Safety Accord

Category: Environmental (???)
Area of Effect: All Businesses (???)

Description: The WA,

RECOGNIZING that numerous WA member nations use nuclear power to generate a substantial amount of energy for their nations;

APPLAUDING these nations for using nuclear power since Nuclear Power is an incredibly eco-friendly energy producing source, especially when compared to traditional coal and gas alternatives;

REALIZING, however, that despite nuclear power facilities generate little waste, nuclear power facilities have the risk of melting down, especially in the wake of a natural disaster or mismanagement by plant personnel;

BELIEVING that both civilians and non-nuclear power facility personnel should not be in a potentially life-threatening situation should a melt-down occur;

Hereby:

1. DEFINES “nuclear power” as power gained through the use of nuclear fusion or fission which often involves uranium or other radioactive materials.

2. MANDATES that member nations must take extreme precautions in selecting qualified personnel as to prevent a melt-down due to sapient error.

3. REQUIRES that any future plants must be built in areas believed to be safe in the event of a natural disaster.
a) Ideally, this safe area should be away from major fault lines, large bodies of water (i.e. and ocean), well-known tornado alleys, etc.
b) If the above cannot be achieved, the nation shall choose an area that in their opinion is the safest available in their nation.
c) Furthermore, preventive measures should be taken since in certain nations, the ideal safe building site for a nuclear power facility could be in the direct path of a potentially devastating natural disaster.
d) These precautions could be, but are not limited to, the establishment of sensors along known fault lines to alert facilities of increasing seismic activity--indicating when to turn the reactor(s) off, the placement of buoys in surrounding water bodies to ensure that if a tidal wave is coming the plant will be offline, etc.

4. DEMANDS that both civilian and plant workers living or working in the vicinity of any nuclear power plant shall be provided with adequate information regarding the potential risk they will be in, should an accident occur.

5. REQUIRES each nation to prepare a documented plan for reducing the risk of nuclear meltdowns and managing nuclear meltdowns and other related accidents occurring on its territory, including, but not limited to the evacuation of populations surrounding the plant, assessing when it is possible to re-enter the area devastated by the melt-down.

6. DEMANDS that each nation forward a copy of their plans for managing and reducing the risk of nuclear meltdowns to the Nuclear Disaster Response Organization (NRDO).

7. ENCOURAGES other WA nations to contribute to melt-down devastated nations in any way possible.

8. NECESSITATES that WA nations shall store radioactive waste in areas that meet at bare minimum the following requirements:
a) Is a reasonable distance from any population--that is, no civilians or other people that are not employed to manage the waste should ever come in contact with the waste.
b) Is not near a river or water body that is tapped to serve the water needs of a population.
c) Is not near an eco-system which includes endangered species.
d) Is in a containment vessel which the nation can chose to construct how they wish, but said vessel's plans should be forwarded to the Nuclear Disaster Response Organization (NDRO) for approval and recording,

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

Or we could take the easy route and switch to thorium entirely...

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I would personally support a repeal of GA#60 and this one becoming a replacement. Hence, the tasks of the NDRO could be shifted to the Nuclear Emergency Response Department (NERD).

[Bergnovinaia]

I would personally support a repeal of GA#60 and this one becoming a replacement. Hence, the tasks of the NDRO could be shifted to the Nuclear Emergency Response Department (NERD).

(Are you serious though, beyond the awesome acronym joke. )

Also, if you think this is a good replacement, you definaetly think it duplicate GA #60?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I would personally support a repeal of GA#60 and this one becoming a replacement. Hence, the tasks of the NDRO could be shifted to the Nuclear Emergency Response Department (NERD).

(Are you serious though, beyond the awesome acronym joke. )

Also, if you think this is a good replacement, you definaetly think it duplicate GA #60?

They are effectively the same in topic, exposing the shortcomings of GA#60. Therefore, Ms. Harper recommended the repeal of the resolution concerned. If you like, I'll author that. The arguments will cover the lack of precautions and land assessment which is one of the factors of a disaster.

[Bergnovinaia]

(Are you serious though, beyond the awesome acronym joke. )

Also, if you think this is a good replacement, you definaetly think it duplicate GA #60?

They are effectively the same in topic, exposing the shortcomings of GA#60. Therefore, Ms. Harper recommended the repeal of the resolution concerned. If you like, I'll author that. The arguments will cover the lack of precautions and land assessment which is one of the factors of a disaster.

Sure... I'm not very good at repeal arguements so that'd be great if you did that.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

They are effectively the same in topic, exposing the shortcomings of GA#60. Therefore, Ms. Harper recommended the repeal of the resolution concerned. If you like, I'll author that. The arguments will cover the lack of precautions and land assessment which is one of the factors of a disaster.

Sure... I'm not very good at repeal arguements so that'd be great if you did that.

I'll also review GA#105 for areas which may have been covered by precautions, but it seems to make no provisions for preventative measures.

[Moronist Decisions]

Us Morons are in support of this plan.

BELEIVING that both civilians and non-nuclear power facility personnel should not be in a potentially life-threating situation should a melt-down occur;

Check spelling, please.

We disagree with the assertion that Resolution 60 should be repealed for this to pass - this doesn't appear to overlap in my opinion except for

5. ASSIGNS the duty of managing nuclear melt-downs to the nation which the melt-down occurs in, including, but not limited to the evacuation of populations surrounding the plant, assessing when it is possible to re-enter the area devastated by the melt-down, etc.

- but would recommend asking Mr. Flibble or another member of the Secretariat to check this.

I would prefer to just add this on - thus adding terms rather than replacing resolution 60. I would recommend removing clause 5, but probably change it to:

5. REQUIRES each nation to prepare a documented plan for reducing the risk of nuclear meltdowns and managing nuclear meltdowns and other related accidents occurring on its territory, including, but not limited to the evacuation of populations surrounding the plant, assessing when it is possible to re-enter the area devastated by the melt-down.

(we don't like "etc" - too vague, sorry)

We also recommend that we require each nation to file their plans and location of their nuclear power plants with the Nuclear Disaster Response Organization (NDRO).

REQUIRES each nation to forward a copy of their plans for managing and reducing the risk of nuclear meltdowns to the Nuclear Disaster Reponse Organization.

[Moronist Decisions]

BTW: category. I don't think that the category environmental deregulation is appropriate at all.

I would vote for Environmental > All Businesses - but not sure.

[Bergnovinaia]

Snip

I accepted your proposal for section 5, however, adding the part about the NDRO would make it illegal I think (sort of like a house of cards violation.)

Oh, and the category and stenght will come last. Initially, I was thinking I would mention something about allowing power facilities to dump uranium waste in certain areas, but that kind of is bi-polar with the rest of the proposal.

[Bergnovinaia]

Snip

I accepted your proposal for section 5, however, adding the part about the NDRO would make it illegal I think (sort of like a house of cards violation.)

Oh, and the category and stenght will come last. Initially, I was thinking I would mention something about allowing power facilities to dump uranium waste in certain areas, but that kind of is bi-polar with the rest of the proposal.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Snip

I accepted your proposal for section 5, however, adding the part about the NDRO would make it illegal I think (sort of like a house of cards violation.)

Oh, and the category and stenght will come last. Initially, I was thinking I would mention something about allowing power facilities to dump uranium waste in certain areas, but that kind of is bi-polar with the rest of the proposal.

If you make it clear that this is going to be a replacement for GA#60 it may not be an issue but it would have to be written as if the NDRO had been disbanded by Ms. Harper's possible repeal on grounds of lack of nuclear power precautions and training.

[Moronist Decisions]

The question is whether to submit this or to repeal 60 and propose a replacement. Adding duties to a committee is allowed.

A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance; however, you may assign duties to an existing committee. Should the Resolution that creates the committe be Repealed, the committee will continue to exist, but in a reduced capacity.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The question is whether to submit this or to repeal 60 and propose a replacement. Adding duties to a committee is allowed.

A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance; however, you may assign duties to an existing committee. Should the Resolution that creates the committe be Repealed, the committee will continue to exist, but in a reduced capacity.

I understand that, but Ms. Harper feels that it is a question of "patching" on the flaws of existing resolutions. As more resolutions addresses flaws of another it is harder to cross reference without making errors in her opinion.

[Darenjo]

(Semi-OOC): Hmm...you cover errors made by people, but what about those caused by nature (like the one in Japan)?

[Bergnovinaia]

(Semi-OOC): Hmm...you cover errors made by people, but what about those caused by nature (like the one in Japan)?

Is this not sufficient?

REQUIRES that any future plants must be built in areas believed to be by the nation building to be the safest possible area in the potentially event of a natural disaster.

[Mousebumples]

Is this not sufficient?

REQUIRES that any future plants must be built in areas believed to be by the nation building to be the safest possible area in the potentially event of a natural disaster.

I can't speak for Darenjo, obviously. However, I recall reading somewhere (OOC) that in California, the nuclear plants fuel sources have special sensors to change halt their activity in case of a seismic event. I don't have a source handy (sorry), but requiring or encouraging a clause along those lines - without being specific to earthquake necessarily (i.e. fire, flood, etc.) - may be beneficial to the overall message of the proposal draft.

[Immortal Empires]

ooc: This is my first post on the site!

ic:

I agree with most of the points brought up except for number 3.

3. REQUIRES that any future plants must be built in areas believed to be by the nation building to be the safest possible area in the potentially event of a natural disaster.

I think that this needs to:
a) be more clearly defined. Does this mean in areas susceptible to earthquakes and other natural disasters, or does it also include places that could come under attack. And how could you accurately tell where is the absolute safest place. Keep in mind that when you use the word safest you leave no wiggle room what so ever.
b) There is only one "safest" place for a reactor, thus (I hope I'm not misunderstanding ) a country could only build 1 reactor, because there is only one safest place.

REALIZING, however, that despite nuclear power facilities generate little waste, nuclear power facilities have the risk of melting down, especially in the wake of a natural disaster or mismanagement by plant personnel;

Keep in mind that this little waste is very radioactive and dangerous. Most of the time it is stored in salt caves to prevent water/moister getting into the radioactive byproduct (waste).

[Bergnovinaia]

Is this not sufficient?

I can't speak for Darenjo, obviously. However, I recall reading somewhere (OOC) that in California, the nuclear plants fuel sources have special sensors to change halt their activity in case of a seismic event. I don't have a source handy (sorry), but requiring or encouraging a clause along those lines - without being specific to earthquake necessarily (i.e. fire, flood, etc.) - may be beneficial to the overall message of the proposal draft.

Addressed!

ooc: This is my first post on the site!

ic:

I agree with most of the points brought up except for number 3.

3. REQUIRES that any future plants must be built in areas believed to be by the nation building to be the safest possible area in the potentially event of a natural disaster.

I think that this needs to:
a) be more clearly defined. Does this mean in areas susceptible to earthquakes and other natural disasters, or does it also include places that could come under attack. And how could you accurately tell where is the absolute safest place. Keep in mind that when you use the word safest you leave no wiggle room what so ever.
b) There is only one "safest" place for a reactor, thus (I hope I'm not misunderstanding ) a country could only build 1 reactor, because there is only one safest place.

REALIZING, however, that despite nuclear power facilities generate little waste, nuclear power facilities have the risk of melting down, especially in the wake of a natural disaster or mismanagement by plant personnel;

Keep in mind that this little waste is very radioactive and dangerous. Most of the time it is stored in salt caves to prevent water/moister getting into the radioactive byproduct (waste).

The first part is fixed. The second... I'm not sure what you want me to do about that one.

[Darenjo]

I would like a clause mandating proper storage of nuclear waste, unless that WA's "covered" by the nuclear waste safety resolution (which, incidentally, I'm considering authoring a repeal for, along with SCfGH).

The part about nature is very acceptable now. Thank you.

[Bergnovinaia]

I would like a clause mandating proper storage of nuclear waste, unless that WA's "covered" by the nuclear waste safety resolution (which, incidentally, I'm considering authoring a repeal for, along with SCfGH).

The part about nature is very acceptable now. Thank you.

Is this good...?

8) NECESSITATES that WA nations shall store radioactive waste in areas that meet at bare minimum the following requirements:
a) Is a reasonable distance from any population--that is, no civilians or other people that are not employed to manage the waste should ever come in contact with the waste.
b) Is not near a river or water body that is tapped to serve the water needs of a population.
c) Is not near an eco-system which includes endangered species or species that are hunted to serve the food needs of a population.
d) Is in a containment vessel which the nation can chose to consturct how they wish.

[Darenjo]

That is very good. Thank you for meeting our concerns.

[Bergnovinaia]

That is very good. Thank you for meeting our concerns.

You're welcome!

(Just doing my job.)

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

Nuclear Power Safety Accord

Category: Advancement of Industry (???)
Area of Effect: Environmental Deregulation (???)

Description: The WA,

RECOGNIZING that numerous WA member nations use nuclear power to generate a substantial amount of energy for their nations;

APPLAUDING these nations for using nuclear power since Nuclear Power is an incredibly eco-friendly energy producing source, especially when compared to traditional coal and gas alternatives;

REALIZING, however, that despite nuclear power facilities generate little waste, nuclear power facilities have the risk of melting down, especially in the wake of a natural disaster or mismanagement by plant personnel;

BELIEVING that both civilians and non-nuclear power facility personnel should not be in a potentially life-threating situation should a melt-down occur;

Good so far, but there's a slight typo in this last clause, it should read

"...personnel should not be in a potentially life-threatening situation..."

Hereby:

1. DEFINES “nuclear power” as power gained through the use of nuclear fusion or fission which often involves uranium or other radioactive materials.

2. MANDATES that member nations must take extreme precautions in selecting qualified personnel as to prevent a melt-down due to sapient error.

3. REQUIRES that any future plants must be built in areas believed to be by the nation building to be in a safe area in the potentially event of a natural disaster.

Clause 3 is a little wordy; you could clean it up to something like this:

REQUIRES that any future plants must be built in areas believed to be safe in the event of a natural disaster.

a) Ideally, this safe area should be away from major fault lines, large bodies of water (i.e. and ocean), well-known tornado alleys, etc.
b) If the above cannot be achieved, the nation shall choose an area they believe to be theoretically the safest in their opinion.

Just a slight suggestion for 3b:

"...the nation shall choose an area they believe to be theoretically the safest available in their nation.

I don't really think there is a need to say "nation shall choose an area they believe" and then say "... in their opinion". Just sounds a bit cleaner in my opinion.

c) Furthermore, preventive measure should be taken since in certain nations, the ideal safe building site for a nuclear power facility could be in the direct path of a potentially devostating natural disaster.

Slight typo, should read

"... in the direct path of a potentially devastating natural disaster."

d) These precautions could be, but are not limited to, the establishment of sensors along known fault lines to alert facilites of growing sismic actives--indicating when to turn the plants reactor off, the placement of buoys in surrouding water bodies to ensure that if a tidal wave is coming the plant will be offline, etc.

Some more slight typos :

"... along known fault lines to alert facilities of growing seismic activity..." / "... the placement of buoys in surrounding water bodies..."

4. DEMANDS that both civilian and plant workers living or working in the vicinity of any nuclear power plant shall be provided with adequate information regarding the potential risk they will be in, should an accident occur.

5. REQUIRES each nation to prepare a documented plan for reducing the risk of nuclear meltdowns and managing nuclear meltdowns and other related accidents occurring on its territory, including, but not limited to the evacuation of populations surrounding the plant, assessing when it is possible to re-enter the area devastated by the melt-down.

6. DEMANDS each nation to forward a copy of their plans for managing and reducing the risk of nuclear meltdowns to the Nuclear Disaster Reponse Organization.

7. ENCOURAGES other WA nations to contribute to melt-down devastated nations and regions in any way possible.

Good, good, good. Seems reasonable.

8) NECESSITATES that WA nations shall store radioactive waste in areas that meet at bare minimum the following requirements:
a) Is a reasonable distance from any population--that is, no civilians or other people that are not employed to manage the waste should ever come in contact with the waste.

What if this is impossible to achieve? I can foresee certain nations, by virtue of their size, not being able to adequately store nuclear waste far enough away from civilian populations. Just a thought. Perhaps my idea of "reasonable distance" is just a lot larger than you had in mind.

b) Is not near a river or water body that is tapped to serve the water needs of a population.

Seems fine.

c) Is not near an ecosystem which includes endangered species or species that are hunted to serve the food needs of a population.

There's no need for a 'dash' in the word "ecosystem" just FYI. Also, I could foresee this being problematic, as certain nations hunt species for food that are present in all areas of their nation. By extension, no area would be eligible for nuclear waste storage if that species was present around it, even if that particular area was not being hunted. Just an issue of semantics, though. I have no issue with the intent of this stipulation.

d) Is in a containment vessel which the nation can chose to consturct how they wish.

Seems like you should at least stipulate that the containment vessel must be adequately constructed, handled, and transported. Something like that. Oh, and also "construct" was misspelled.

All in all, I like your ideas. I apologize for the long-winded reply, but I just wanted to point out some of the spelling/grammar issues. Provided some minor concerns are addressed, I see no reason why the government of Cool Egg Sandwich would not support such a proposal.


Saludos,

[Moronist Decisions]

Nuclear Power Safety Accord

Category: Advancement of Industry (???)
Area of Effect: Environmental Deregulation (???)

Description: The WA,

RECOGNIZING that numerous WA member nations use nuclear power to generate a substantial amount of energy for their nations;

APPLAUDING these nations for using nuclear power since Nuclear Power is an incredibly eco-friendly energy producing source, especially when compared to traditional coal and gas alternatives;

REALIZING, however, that despite nuclear power facilities generate little waste, nuclear power facilities have the risk of melting down, especially in the wake of a natural disaster or mismanagement by plant personnel;

BELIEVING that both civilians and non-nuclear power facility personnel should not be in a potentially life-threatening situation should a melt-down occur;

Hereby:

1. DEFINES “nuclear power” as power gained through the use of nuclear fusion or fission which often involves uranium or other radioactive materials.

2. MANDATES that member nations must take extreme precautions in selecting qualified personnel as to prevent a melt-down due to sapient error.

3. REQUIRES that any future plants must be built in areas believed to be by the nation building to be in a safe area in the potentially event of a natural disaster.
a) Ideally, this safe area should be away from major fault lines, large bodies of water (i.e. and ocean), well-known tornado alleys, etc.
b) If the above cannot be achieved, the nation shall choose an area they believe to be theoretically the safest in their opinion. remove the word "theoretically"? This seems to imply that if mathematical theory suggests that a certain location is the safest, even though in reality what we believe from experience is that somewhere else is safer for a number of other reasons, then we have to choose the unproven theory
c) Furthermore, preventive measures should be taken since in certain nations, the ideal safe building site for a nuclear power facility could be in the direct path of a potentially devastating natural disaster. These precautions couldbe, but are not limited to, the establishment of sensors along known fault lines to alert facilities of growing seismic activities--indicating when to turn the plantsreactors off, the placement of buoys in surrounding water bodies to ensure that if a tidal wave is coming the plant will be offline, etc. (a little too much detail for my taste, but whatever)

4. DEMANDS that both civilian and plant workers living or working in the vicinity of any nuclear power plant shall be provided with adequate information regarding the potential risk they will be in, should an accident occur.

5. REQUIRES each nation to prepare a documented plan for reducing the risk of nuclear meltdowns and managing nuclear meltdowns and other related accidents occurring on its territory, including, but not limited to the evacuation of populations surrounding the plant, assessing when it is possible to re-enter the area devastated by the melt-down.

6. DEMANDS that each nationto forward a copy of their plans for managing and reducing the risk of nuclear meltdowns to the Nuclear Disaster Response Organization.

7. ENCOURAGES other WA nations to contribute to melt-down devastated nations and regions in any way possible. is mentioning regions OK? I suspect it might be against the rules on metagaming, but not sure

NECESSITATES that WA nations shall store radioactive waste in areas that meet at bare minimum the following requirements:
a) Is a reasonable distance from any population--that is, no civilians or other people that are not employed to manage the waste should ever come in contact with the waste.
b) Is not near a river or water body that is tapped to serve the water needs of a population.
c) Is not near an eco-system which includes endangered species or species that are hunted to serve the food needs of a population.
d) Is in a containment vessel which the nation can chose to construct ashow they wish. please review this - the Moron Science Foundation doesn't want to find out that people are putting radioactive waste in lunch-boxes, or dinghies

A little harsh, but I hope it helps ...

(posted at the same time as CES)