[DRAFT]Nuclear Safety Protocol

[John Turner]

"Nuclear Safety Protocol"
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: John Turner

The World Assembly,

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

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

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

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 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:
   
   
   1. Establish minimum guidelines on the safe operation of each class and type nuclear reactor facility within member nations,
      
      
   2. Provide assistance with training personnel and bringing plants to code,
      
      
   3. Provide investigative assistance and logistical support in the event of incident involving nuclear reactor facilities,
      
      
   4. Provide assistance and logistical support during an unscheduled shutdown or decommissioning of a nuclear reactor facility.
6. 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,
   
   
7. 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.

Restarting this one. Comments, question, concerns and general bitches are always appreciated.

[The Lowlands and Saxony]

I just read it and have no complaints. I shall vote for this proposal when it lands on the GA floor

Kind Regards,
Richard van Dongen

Chief Adviser for Foreign Affairs
Saxonian Advisory Agency for Foreign Affairs

[John Turner]

IC: Still opposed to this on principle.

And what principle would that be? Perhaps I need to talk with my drafting department. We have a serious lack of air safety regulations around the WA, and our delegation could probably pass one.

[Tinfect]

"The Imperium can support this proposal, if only due to the fact that it is common-sense regulation. Any member-state not already doing this is quite likely in no position to still exist."

"The Queendom is opposed", announced Lord Raekevik. "We do not want to recognise any such 'right'."

"And why would you like to remove the ability of the Imperium to provide Power to all of our Citizens? Or the ability to power our Military? If the Imperium does not have this right, would you have us destroy centuries of advancement, and return to a more primitive era?"

[Normlpeople]

Clover smiled "As usual, your delegation displays a nice knack for the blocker. That said, I would like to see the role of the NESC expanded to include assistance with training personnel and bringing plants to code, for investigating an incident, or for shutting a plant down permanently, all if it is requested by the member nation of course."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"And why would you like to remove the ability of the Imperium to provide Power to all of our Citizens? Or the ability to power our Military? If the Imperium does not have this right, would you have us destroy centuries of advancement, and return to a more primitive era?"

Parsons: (flips around his pen) He wants to sell you antimatter reactors.

[The Democratic Nation of Unovia]

Thank you Thank you Thank you for putting this up. I see no issues with this and will vote for it.

[Alqania]

"The Queendom is opposed", announced Lord Raekevik. "We do not want to recognise any such 'right'."

"And why would you like to remove the ability of the Imperium to provide Power to all of our Citizens? Or the ability to power our Military? If the Imperium does not have this right, would you have us destroy centuries of advancement, and return to a more primitive era?"

"Is the Imperium only able to do something if a GA Resolution has given it the right to?" countered Lord Raekevik. "The Queendom has no interest in banning or intervening against Imperium nuclear power operations, but we are also opposed to having such operations sanctioned by the WA."

Parsons: (flips around his pen) He wants to sell you antimatter reactors.

"My dear Duke, your comment raises an interesting point: why is the technologically advanced, interstellar Imperium completely dependent on such a non-futuristic power source? I had hoped for my own nation's sake that the future would be more interesting than just fancier nuclear power plants."

[Tinfect]

"Is the Imperium only able to do something if a GA Resolution has given it the right to?" countered Lord Raekevik. "The Queendom has no interest in banning or intervening against Imperium nuclear power operations, but we are also opposed to having such operations sanctioned by the WA."

"And why would it not be sanctioned? What possible reason could one have for opposing Fusion?"

Parsons: (flips around his pen) He wants to sell you antimatter reactors.

"My dear Duke, your comment raises an interesting point: why is the technologically advanced, interstellar Imperium completely dependent on such a non-futuristic power source? I had hoped for my own nation's sake that the future would be more interesting than just fancier nuclear power plants."

"Fusion, Ambassador. Nuclear Fusion. If you can show me a superior, alternative, I will be sure to propose it to the Imperium. As it is, Antimatter is simply too unstable for use in anything save weaponry, and other means of generation are simply too inefficient for total implementation."

[Wrapper]

I had hoped for my own nation's sake that the future would be more interesting than just fancier nuclear power plants.

(Wad Ahume raises a finger as if to speak, but Wad Ari grabs his hand and lowers it quickly.)

Now, Ambassador... hrmm, Turner, is it? Welcome to the assembly, sir, we look forward to working with the Canadian federation once again. As for this proposal, we are glad to see you picking up where your predecessor left off on this. We see nothing objectionable, though we do echo Ambassador Clover's request to include some sort of closure plan requirement. Considering how much engineering and planning goes into a nukular power plant -- (Ahume whispers the word "nuclear" in his ear) -- whatever -- such a contingency would not cause too many delays nor cost too much to implement, are we correct?

Oh, and, do say hello to that dear president of yours on our behalf, hmm? In spite of our differences we did enjoy working with good ol' Chet -- uh, with, the esteemed Mister Pearson. Sometimes.

[Alqania]

"And why would it not be sanctioned? What possible reason could one have for opposing Fusion?"

"This proposal is not limited to fusion."

"Fusion, Ambassador. Nuclear Fusion. If you can show me a superior, alternative, I will be sure to propose it to the Imperium. As it is, Antimatter is simply too unstable for use in anything save weaponry, and other means of generation are simply too inefficient for total implementation."

"My apologies, Ambassador, but I think the debate transcript would show that the fusion part had not been specified."

[Tinfect]

"This proposal is not limited to fusion."

"Than, what, exactly, is your objection to Fission? As you do not seem to have any such things for Fusion."

"My apologies, Ambassador, but I think the debate transcript would show that the fusion part had not been specified."

"That... would be correct, I apologize, I had assumed it would be evident given the nature of the Imperium."

[John Turner]

Have made a few changes at the behest of Her Cleverness and the Wads. I do hope this brings this into agreement with your delegations?

[Wrapper]

Have made a few changes at the behest of Her Cleverness and the Wads. I do hope this brings this into agreement with your delegations?

Content-wise, well, yes, largely, except for an issue with the last clause:

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.

Why exempt military vessels and not civilian vessels? Our opinion is, either include all nuclear propulsion systems or exclude them all. (OOC: trying very hard not to space-wank on this one but I will if provoked. Heh.)

Aside from that, the assistant ambassador, who moonlights as a grammar nazi at children's parties-- (Ahume raises an eyebrow, but then nods) --has noted a few, erm, minor quibbles:

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

-- no comma after "clean".

Concerned that nuclear reactor facilities which are not properly secured

-- "that", not "which".

Further defines a nuclear reactor as a system that contains and controls sustained nuclear chain reactions

-- We think, but we're not entirely sure, that you should remove the word "chain," as we're reasonably sure that fusion reactions are not chain reactions. Perhaps someone with a little more expertise than us can verify.

to ensure the protection of personnel, and the surrounding populations

-- remove comma after "personnel".

To provide assistance and logistical support during an unscheduled shut-down or decommissioning of a nuclear reactor facility

-- remove "To" in this subclause, it's already included in the preceding main clause.

Further directs the Nuclear Disaster Response Organization to provide funding and assistance to nations whom experience a catastrophic incident

-- change "whom" to "that". Also, just for the record, this clause contradicts GAR#60, so, that repeal would have to come first.

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

-- oh my, this one's pretty clunky. We suggest a reword.

[Bears Armed]

Further defines a nuclear reactor as a system that contains and controls sustained nuclear chain reactions

-- We think, but we're not entirely sure, that you should remove the word "chain," as we're reasonably sure that fusion reactions are not chain reactions. Perhaps someone with a little more expertise than us can verify.

OOC (because the Bears IC don't really study nuclear physics much): But if you remove that word, then wouldn't the definition effectively extend not only to nuclear-electric batteries (as used in some RL spacecraft) as well but even to the radioisotope sources that are used for some medical purposes... and maybeso, although I'm not up on the technical details, to X-ray machines?

[Wrapper]

Further defines a nuclear reactor as a system that contains and controls sustained nuclear chain reactions

-- We think, but we're not entirely sure, that you should remove the word "chain," as we're reasonably sure that fusion reactions are not chain reactions. Perhaps someone with a little more expertise than us can verify.

OOC (because the Bears IC don't really study nuclear physics much): But if you remove that word, then wouldn't the definition effectively extend not only to nuclear-electric batteries (as used in some RL spacecraft) as well but even to the radioisotope sources that are used for some medical purposes... and maybeso, although I'm not up on the technical details, to X-ray machines?

OOC: I don't think radioactive decay is considered a nuclear reaction per se.

OOC EDIT:

"Nuclear reaction" is a term implying an induced change in a nuclide, and thus it does not apply to any type of radioactive decay (which by definition is a spontaneous process).

[Atomic Utopia]

The USSAU ambassador read over the proposal several times and listened to the suggestions of other ambassadors.

"Herr ambassador, I believe there are several, er... alterations that could be made to your current proposal. Among these alterations I would recommend those suggested by the ambassador from Wrapper, and yes fusion is not a chain reaction, and several more along with that.

You see, the last clause could be interpreted in several interesting ways that may conflict with the intended goal of this resolution, in fact it might completely eliminate the applicability of this resolution to nuclear reactors, weather for isotope production, civilian power stations or anything else. This takes quite a bit of understanding of nuclear reactors to fully appreciate. You see, in a nuclear reactor, especially fission ones, the reactor core and quite a bit of it's systems are contained in a containment vessel (CV), which consumes electricity if it contains pumps, magnets, lights, anything really. Also, considering that all frames of reference points are equally valid, all nuclear reactors are moving relative to some reference point. If you were to use the sun than earth would be moving. If you use the earth, than mars would be moving, if you were to use the WA HQ and say that all places do not move relative to it, than just throw out that part.

Now if you were to consider the wording, which states 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' then note, that it does not specify what a vessel is, or if that vessel must be mobile, and that CVs are... well referred to as CVs; you can see the problem quite clearly. All one has to do is put their reactors under military control, easy, and make certain that the reactor powers itself, also easy.

Thus I propose that the clause should be removed and replaced with the following:

"All nuclear reactors that are contained in and provide power or propulsion to military vehicles shall be exempt from these regulations.

And there is another problem. By use of the word sustained you throw out all possibility of the use of unsustained nuclear fission being regulated as a peaceful electrical energy source. You see, a few years ago we conducted the Project Minerva Test Series to determine the applicability of various new concepts for the peaceful use of nuclear explosive devices. Minerva XVII (17) was one such test. The test was to determine the applicability of the use of multi stage prompt supercritical fission devices in generating electrical energy for peaceful applications. By detonating such devices in salt deposits we were capable of creating what amounted to an artificial and temporary geothermal hotspot, which could then be utilized for electrical energy generation, and in this case space heating. Thus if this piece of legislation could cover that, that would be good."

Why exempt military vessels and not civilian vessels? Our opinion is, either include all nuclear propulsion systems or exclude them all. (OOC: trying very hard not to space-wank on this one but I will if provoked. Heh.)

"Herr ambassador, the reasoning behind it, from what I can infer, is to protect military vehicles which may not at all times be secured from the requirement to be secure at all times from unauthorized action. Civilian vessels, presumably, would be secure at all times. At least that is what I get from it."

[Aligned Planets]

I started to go through a detailed critique of this post, and was surprised by commentators who have said there's no problem with this.

Has the author read WAR #60 [Nuclear Disaster Response Act], WAR #292 [Nuclear Security Convention], and others?

Operative clause 3 (Requires member nations to ensure...) is covered by WAR #292; clause 4 is covered by WAR #60, and clause 5 is also largely covered by the duties of the Nuclear Disaster Response Organization.

I don't really see what this draft adds to nuclear safety, other than to encroach unnecessarily upon national sovereignty. Now, if we wanted to talk about a R&R of all the nuclear legislation, and re-codifying under a Nuclear Safety Protocol.. then that's a different conversation!

[Separatist Peoples]

I started to go through a detailed critique of this post, and was surprised by commentators who have said there's no problem with this.

Has the author read WAR #60 [Nuclear Disaster Response Act], WAR #292 [Nuclear Security Convention], and others?

Operative clause 3 (Requires member nations to ensure...) is covered by WAR #292; clause 4 is covered by WAR #60, and clause 5 is also largely covered by the duties of the Nuclear Disaster Response Organization.

I don't really see what this draft adds to nuclear safety, other than to encroach unnecessarily upon national sovereignty. Now, if we wanted to talk about a R&R of all the nuclear legislation, and re-codifying under a Nuclear Safety Protocol.. then that's a different conversation!

OOC: I sure hope the OP read GAR292. They authored it.

[John Turner]

I started to go through a detailed critique of this post, and was surprised by commentators who have said there's no problem with this.

Has the author read WAR #60 [Nuclear Disaster Response Act],

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=352017

WAR #292 [Nuclear Security Convention], and others?

We authored it, so I sure hope so.

Any further questions?

[Pharthan]

Why exempt military vessels and not civilian vessels? Our opinion is, either include all nuclear propulsion systems or exclude them all. (OOC: trying very hard not to space-wank on this one but I will if provoked. Heh.)
.

(OOC: Safety culture involved with military reactors is often very different from the safety culture surrounding civilian reactors and require their own organizations and separate controls and whatnot. Having multiple such organizations can be easily prohibitive.)

[John Turner]

Why exempt military vessels and not civilian vessels? Our opinion is, either include all nuclear propulsion systems or exclude them all. (OOC: trying very hard not to space-wank on this one but I will if provoked. Heh.)
.

(OOC: Safety culture involved with military reactors is often very different from the safety culture surrounding civilian reactors and require their own organizations and separate controls and whatnot. Having multiple such organizations can be easily prohibitive.)

Precisely. Military applications of technology have long been exempt from the same standards placed upon civilian applications as military applications tend to be more robust due to the environments they operate in.

[Atomic Utopia]

"Herr ambassador, I have a simple question, how is this international sucurity? I could see "environmental all business" due to it's effect on all businesses power supplies, isotope availability, and propulsion of various vehicles, however I, for the life of me, cannot see how the parts about the evacuation of contaminated areas etc. Please, enlighten me as to how your category is correct."

[John Turner]

"Herr ambassador, I have a simple question, how is this international sucurity? I could see "environmental all business" due to it's effect on all businesses power supplies, isotope availability, and propulsion of various vehicles, however I, for the life of me, cannot see how the parts about the evacuation of contaminated areas etc. Please, enlighten me as to how your category is correct."

Requires member nations to ensure their nuclear reactor facilities are secured against unauthorized intrusion or tampering,

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,

Provide investigative assistance and logistical support in the event of incident involving nuclear reactor facilities,

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,

All puts it well within the realm of International Security as it requires a boost to military/police spending.

[Flawdom]

"Herr ambassador, I have a simple question, how is this international sucurity? I could see "environmental all business" due to it's effect on all businesses power supplies, isotope availability, and propulsion of various vehicles, however I, for the life of me, cannot see how the parts about the evacuation of contaminated areas etc. Please, enlighten me as to how your category is correct."

Requires member nations to ensure their nuclear reactor facilities are secured against unauthorized intrusion or tampering,

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,

Provide investigative assistance and logistical support in the event of incident involving nuclear reactor facilities,

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,

All puts it well within the realm of International Security as it requires a boost to military/police spending.

Honestly, while it may just barely scrape into International Security (and we do not feel it does), it is a much better fit for "environment all business," as the Ambassador from Atomic Utopia pointed out.