Nuclear Reactor Security Act

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

"Nuclear Reactor Security Act"
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Jean Pierre Trudeau

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the rights of member nations to utilize nuclear reactor technology to meet the scientific and energy needs of their nation,

Concerned that nuclear reactor facilities which are not properly secured or which are not properly tested have a probability of not functioning as intended, possibly producing harmful radiological accidents,

Also realizing the need for safe and secure energy sources which can be met with clean, and environmentally friendly nuclear energy,

Thus resolving to enact a sensible policy that allows for the safe and secure usage of nuclear reactor technology, whilst maintaining the safety of the surrounding populace,

The General Assembly hereby,

1. Defines nuclear energy as the use of sustained nuclear fission or fusion to generate heat and electricity,
   
   
2. Further defines a nuclear reactor as a system that contains and controls sustained nuclear chain reactions,
   
   
3. Requires member nations to ensure their nuclear reactor facilities are secured against unauthorized intrusion or tampering,
   
   
4. Demands nations operating nuclear reactor facilities to maintain their own nuclear security and safety organization, to ensure the protection of personnel, and the surrounding populations,
   
   
5. Directs the Nuclear Energy Safety Commission to establish minimum guidelines on the safe operation of each class and type nuclear reactor facility within member nations,
   
   
6. Further directs the Nuclear Disaster Response Organization to provide funding and assistance to nations whom experience a catastrophic incident within a nuclear reactor facility, to protect the surrounding populace from the harmful effects of such incident.
   
   
7. Clarifies that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as affecting the right of member nations to utilize nuclear reactors for scientific and energy production purposes, nor denying members nations the right to further restrict the use of nuclear reactor technology,
   
   
8. Further clarifies that nothing in this resolution shall apply to mobile reactors used for the propulsion or energy requirements of commissioned vessels under the control of member nation armed forces.

[Dooom35796821595]

We would like to ask why the honourable delegate has such a vendetta against nuclear power? After all it is a very safe and reliable source of power with advantages, disadvantages and risks just like any other power source. Perhaps the delegate would like to draft a resolution on safe extraction of combustible hydrocarbons, or regulations on clean coal fired power plants?

[Pharthan]

"We would like to ask why the delegate from Dooom has such a vendetta against reading? This resolution only ensures reactor safety. While the author may have been a part of repealing our own resolution, their replacement is at least acceptable.
"The issue with nuclear power safety is that while it's effects may be so far lessened in comparison to fossil-fuel plants, the general populace often knows very little about it and in so panics whenever the slightest issue arises. Nuclear power for many nations is the clean energy of the future, and such panic creates and undue negative impact upon their advancement and the advancement of the technology as a whole. The panic caused by such incidents, however relatively small, is vast enough to have ripple effects across the globe far more damaging than radiation exposure."

((OOC: This is so vague it just might work combining fission and fusion. My eye still twitches a little at the thought of trying to have a resolution that shoehorns them in together like this one does, but I can't really find fault in it beyond personal bias.

As much as I want to be the one to author the resolution regarding Reactor Safety, I also don't have the time to write my own right now or campaign for it, and I don't have enough of an argument against this one to actually say I wouldn't vote for it.
So, constructive criticism and suggestions here we go.

It still isn't rigid enough to actually do anything, IMO. But knowing you, you probably disagree. But at least take what I'm saying seriously. I may not know the WA as well as you, but nuclear power is without a doubt my forte, here.

You could at the very least alter the NESC statement to the following:
"Directs the Nuclear Energy Safety Commission to establish minimum guidelines on the safe operation of specific to each class and type of nuclear reactor plant within member nations," to ensure that we aren't just making blanket statements covering every reactor, as each reactor requires more specific and stringent guidelines.

And both empower and demand the national nuclear safety organization to inspect the nuclear reactor plant. You can make it at least that rigid. This isn't a case of, "oh, what if they say they don't need to inspect them?"
Because they do. They really, really do. No ifs, ands, or buts. Timeframe can be variable, sure, but they need to be inspected at least a few times over the course of core-life.

Also recommend empowering the national nuclear safety organization to set local radiation exposure limits.

To help prevent loopholes:
1. Change the statement in 5. to read "nuclear reactor plant," vice just nuclear reactor. The entire plant must be safe. The reactor is all to easily interpretted as the core itself. The core is usually the last thing to have problems related to reactor safety. Of course, it's not until the core has problems that the public becomes endangered, really.
2. Add and "(s)" to the end of "nuclear security and safety organization" in 4 to allow for multiple organizations. This is preferable in nations witn nuclear powered military vessels to allow them to operate their own relatively independent safety organization due to logistics.
While no logical person would say they couldn't have multiple organizations, that's just simply how it reads right now is that only one is allowed.
3. Replace "facility" with "plant." Not all locations (i.e. nuclear powered vessels, small modular reactor plants, et cetera) would be easily classified as a "facility," whereas all can be classified as "nuclear reactor plants."))

[Caracasus]

We feel that this resolution is reasonable as stands, however we would like to see legislation regarding disposal of potentially harmful waste (unless of course this is covered by existing legislation).

We would also like to point out to the good ambassador that his editorial team seems to have been negligent once more in proofreading his entire proposal.

"Nuclear Reactor Security Act"
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

[Dooom35796821595]

"We would like to ask why the delegate from Dooom has such a vendetta against reading? This resolution only ensures reactor safety. While the author may have been a part of repealing our own resolution, their replacement is at least acceptable.
"The issue with nuclear power safety is that while it's effects may be so far lessened in comparison to fossil-fuel plants, the general populace often knows very little about it and in so panics whenever the slightest issue arises. Nuclear power for many nations is the clean energy of the future, and such panic creates and undue negative impact upon their advancement and the advancement of the technology as a whole. The panic caused by such incidents, however relatively small, is vast enough to have ripple effects across the globe far more damaging than radiation exposure."

We have read the resolution, we have also witnessed the authors obsession on over regulation of anything nuclear.
This attempt to enable reactor saftey is vauge and nonspecific and at best can be completely ignored, and at worst make it impossible for a nation to utilise nuclear power. For example.

Requires member nations to ensure their nuclear reactor facilities are fully secured against intrusion,

Impossible.

It is not our concern that some fearful primitive nation has residents who are scared of radiation due to a combination of their own ignorance on the subject and government cover ups and deception, however that is hardly a reason to pass WA legislation as the nations nuclear engineers and physicists should have sufficient knowledge on the subject to eradicate their fear and build a safe reactor.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

We would like to ask why the honourable delegate has such a vendetta against nuclear power? After all it is a very safe and reliable source of power with advantages, disadvantages and risks just like any other power source. Perhaps the delegate would like to draft a resolution on safe extraction of combustible hydrocarbons, or regulations on clean coal fired power plants?

What vendetta? This is promoting the use of nuclear power.

[
This attempt to enable reactor saftey is vauge and nonspecific and at best can be completely ignored, and at worst make it impossible for a nation to utilise nuclear power. For example.

Requires member nations to ensure their nuclear reactor facilities are fully secured against intrusion,

Impossible.

Really? Establish perimeter security. Are your security forces really so inept, that they cannot run background checks on personnel, and check I.D. cards?

We feel that this resolution is reasonable as stands, however we would like to see legislation regarding disposal of potentially harmful waste (unless of course this is covered by existing legislation).

It's been done

We would also like to point out to the good ambassador that his editorial team seems to have been negligent once more in proofreading his entire proposal.

"Nuclear Reactor Security Act"
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

I don't see a problem.

[Dooom35796821595]

We would like to ask why the honourable delegate has such a vendetta against nuclear power? After all it is a very safe and reliable source of power with advantages, disadvantages and risks just like any other power source. Perhaps the delegate would like to draft a resolution on safe extraction of combustible hydrocarbons, or regulations on clean coal fired power plants?

What vendetta? This is promoting the use of nuclear power.

By introducing needless regulation and furthering scaremongering that nuclear power is somehow more dangerous then other methods of power generation. And your inclusion of fusion is still infuriating, as fusion cannot create critical events unless the reactor is specifically designed to do so.

[
This attempt to enable reactor saftey is vauge and nonspecific and at best can be completely ignored, and at worst make it impossible for a nation to utilise nuclear power. For example.

Requires member nations to ensure their nuclear reactor facilities are fully secured against intrusion,

Impossible.

Really? Establish perimeter security. Are your security forces really so inept, that they cannot run background checks on personnel, and check I.D. cards?

The wording of the resolution can be interpreted to require the reactor be secured against any form of intrusion which anyone who has a concept of military strategy knows is impossible. Fully secured? What does that even mean? Does each reactor need to be located on a secure military base with shutdown procedures in the event of intruders? And what about private vehicles with a fusion core, do they all need their own security team?
Not every nation is stuck in the early atomic age.

[Caracasus]

We were under the impression that nuclear reactor safety would be more of an environmental issue than a military one.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

We were under the impression that nuclear reactor safety would be more of an environmental issue than a military one.

Actually it is a security issue.

[Pharthan]

By introducing needless regulation and furthering scaremongering that nuclear power is somehow more dangerous then other methods of power generation. And your inclusion of fusion is still infuriating, as fusion cannot create critical events unless the reactor is specifically designed to do so.

"This regulation is far from needless. While many nations are fully capable of producing nuclear power safely, others are not. Nuclear power is dangerous and must be respected in order to be operated properly. Such respect can be incorporated into the design process to essentially make the reactor 'safe,' but the very inherent nature of nuclear power is one which can cause death and destruction. This resolution is in place to prevent nations from skirting their responsibility of safe reactor operation. In the past, some nations have placed an emphasis on the 'work' side of the reactor operation, such as electricity, rather than placing an emphasis on reactor safety.
"Nuclear reactors are only safe because we have made them so. We have harnessed and 'tamed' a beast and made it do our bidding. Do not be fooled into thinking it is not dangerous. Such thinkings is what causes reactor accidents. Any proper nuclear technician can tell you this. If they say otherwise, I know the nuclear reactor operators of my nation would like to see such individuals drawn an quartered for their negligence and ignorance.
"While I also disagree with the inclusion of fusion in this resolution, and disagree with it's exclusion being a reason to have gotten rid of the last resolution, it is not without it's place. Fusion reactions do create a safety concern as well.

This resolution is far from fearmongering in the aspect of vilifying nuclear power over other forms. It merely spells out the dangers of this form, rather than trying to cover others as well. Many are lulled into a false sense of security by the fact that even GEN-3 and GEN-4 reactors are practically impossible to melt down; they forget the beast that has been tamed and the old reactors like Gen-I and Gen-IIs can still present a danger. True, many of the times this danger is falsely amplified by ignorant people, but to forget about what dangers nuclear power still provides is to be as ignorant as the people who think we should do away with nuclear power entirely."

Really? Establish perimeter security. Are your security forces really so inept, that they cannot run background checks on personnel, and check I.D. cards?

"Prolonged ID card checks being 100% perfect is a laughable notion. Background checks are not 100% effective either. I would like to see you stand watch for 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year and never make a mistake. It's not a matter of being inept. It's a matter of being human, plain an simple. Humans make mistakes.
"Such a suggestion would also not easily stop a malicious intrusion."

Does each reactor need to be located on a secure military base with shutdown procedures in the event of intruders? And what about private vehicles with a fusion core, do they all need their own security team?
Not every nation is stuck in the early atomic age.

((OOC: Shutdown procedures in event of intruders? It's as simple as scramming the reactor out (in whatever facet that may be), really. Perhaps adding some sort of poison (an element, like boron, designed to prevent further reactions), but if a reactor doesn't have the ability to scram (without very good reason and explanations, which I can presently not comprehend) I would personally enjoy watching those designers be flogged.
Military bases are also not the only secure facilities.
Intrusion prevention can be as simple as having a keycoded door.))

[Imperializt Russia]

What vendetta? This is promoting the use of nuclear power.

By introducing needless regulation and furthering scaremongering that nuclear power is somehow more dangerous then other methods of power generation. And your inclusion of fusion is still infuriating, as fusion cannot create critical events unless the reactor is specifically designed to do so.

Really? Establish perimeter security. Are your security forces really so inept, that they cannot run background checks on personnel, and check I.D. cards?

The wording of the resolution can be interpreted to require the reactor be secured against any form of intrusion which anyone who has a concept of military strategy knows is impossible. Fully secured? What does that even mean? Does each reactor need to be located on a secure military base with shutdown procedures in the event of intruders? And what about private vehicles with a fusion core, do they all need their own security team?
Not every nation is stuck in the early atomic age.

Just because such measures can be broken does not mean those measures are not in place.

My computer (and my Nationstates account) are password protected. Just because someone can break that password does not mean they are unprotected.
A facility can be fully secured against intrusion, and those measures to secure it be bypassed or defeated (say, if during a war, the enemy brings a tank battalion to secure a power plant and a group of rifle-armed police officers decide they can no longer mount a defence). It is secured, regardless.

The reason why nuclear power (IRL) is so safe is largely because of heavy regulation.