[DRAFT]Nuclear Safety Protocol

[John Turner]

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.

I am afraid we will have to disagree on that point. The case has clearly been made for IntSec and that point is not up for negotiation.

[Flawdom]

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.

I am afraid we will have to disagree on that point. The case has clearly been made for IntSec and that point is not up for negotiation.

OOC: Seriously, your case is really weak. It hardly fits into IntSec

[John Turner]

I am afraid we will have to disagree on that point. The case has clearly been made for IntSec and that point is not up for negotiation.

OOC: Seriously, your case is really weak. It hardly fits into IntSec

OOC: Forgive me if I sound blunt here as I am not trying to be, but I have written more International Security proposals/resolutions than anyone else, so I know that category fairly well.

[Flawdom]

OOC: Seriously, your case is really weak. It hardly fits into IntSec

OOC: Forgive me if I sound blunt here as I am not trying to be, but I have written more International Security proposals/resolutions than anyone else, so I know that category fairly well.

OOC: Than anyone else? If you say so. Even so, I'm not necessarily saying that your proposal is weak for IntSec, but that your case for putting in into IntSec is weak. You are not explaining your case well enough to satisfy others that it belongs in IntSec.

EDIT OOC: From my research a similar proposal was verified by a mod to be International Security, Mild so I withdraw my complaint (note: not making a ruling, just explaining my position change). I still think Environment is a better category based on the content of the resolution rather than its mission statement, but oh well.

[Pharthan]

"Pharthan supports this resolution, though we would like to see more concrete wording involving safety precautions, such as meltdown prevention, and precautions protecting against natural and man-made disasters."

[John Turner]

"Pharthan supports this resolution, though we would like to see more concrete wording involving safety precautions, such as meltdown prevention, and precautions protecting against natural and man-made disasters."

Suggestions?

[Pharthan]

(OOC: Honestly? The resolution of mine that you killed.
Generally speaking, you want to talk in the way of being able to have multiple methods of removing excess decay heat and being able to show protection against natural disasters applicable to that area; i.e. a nuclear reactor stationed on a lake doesn't need a 50 foot seawall to protect it from a tsunami whereas one on a coastline will. Most will need some sort of individual, isolated source of secondary power, like a diesel generator, to ensure the plant has the power to remove decay heat, but that can be roped into the first statement easily and vaguely.
If nothing else, the wording right now isn't "concrete" enough to enforce such things. A large portion of why I wrote my original resolution was more or less to talk about disaster prevention and ensuring proper safety culture, as every standing resolution related to nuclear power right now is about response rather than prevention.)

[Valendia]

"An excellent resolution and a rather glaring omission in the World Assembly's extant corpus of nuclear energy regulation. Our republic wholeheartedly SUPPORTS this, and encourages other member states to do likewise."

[Atomic Utopia]

"Pharthan supports this resolution, though we would like to see more concrete wording involving safety precautions, such as meltdown prevention, and precautions protecting against natural and man-made disasters."

Suggestions?

One word. Probability. Rather than legislating how many coolant loops there needs to be, how thick the concrete dome can be, or other such inanity, look at the accident probabilities of RL nuclear reactors and find a value close to it and tack on "from the point of reference of said reactor core". It will be simple to write, simple to read, very unambiguous, and always work.

I support this, and I have no problems with it as it stands.

[Wrapper]

OOC: Just pointing out, since it's lost somewhere in the previous page, that there are still some grammatical errors and other issues that, for the most part, have not been addressed.

[John Turner]

Bumping for further feedback

[Separatist Peoples]

Suggestions?

One word. Probability. Rather than legislating how many coolant loops there needs to be, how thick the concrete dome can be, or other such inanity, look at the accident probabilities of RL nuclear reactors and find a value close to it and tack on "from the point of reference of said reactor core". It will be simple to write, simple to read, very unambiguous, and always work.

I support this, and I have no problems with it as it stands.

"Indeed. That way, if we can find a way to build a reactor out of sand, old chewing gum, and bat guano, and it meets standards, we can. Not, um, that the C.D.S.P. has any such plans..."

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

"Indeed. That way, if we can find a way to build a reactor out of sand, old chewing gum, and bat guano, and it meets standards, we can. Not, um, that the C.D.S.P. has any such plans..."

Oh that sounds like a fun rainy day project for the kiddies.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Indeed. That way, if we can find a way to build a reactor out of sand, old chewing gum, and bat guano, and it meets standards, we can. Not, um, that the C.D.S.P. has any such plans..."

Oh that sounds like a fun rainy day project for the kiddies.

"Right? We figured the local Orphanariun could use a pet project and a half ton of Uranium."

[Pharthan]

"We of Pharthan still support the notion that a requirement for redundancies of protection systems and methods of decay heat removal, unless ambient shall suffice, be included in the resolution. While much of the resolution is fine, it does not mandate a protection from possible unforeseen situations."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"We're always wary of 'demand' clauses - there's too much room to interpret their power away with a lazy wave of the hands. So is this a requirement that the WA has the explicit power to enforce? Then it's an order, instruction, mandate, or whatever. Or is it a plaintive whining plea, dressed up in a big boy angry tone of voice to mask its total powerlessness? In which case it's an urging, encouragement, request, or suggestion."

"Other than that, we support, though more strongly if he Pharthanian ambassador's suggestions are incorporated."

[Grays Harbor]

I do not like this. I do not like this one little bit. At all. In any way. The idea that we actually support this as written, and in the IntSec category causes me physical discomfort. If this were submitted as is, I would be forced to urge my delegate to approve.

Now I need a drink and to see my doctor. In that order. The GA is getting weirder by the moment.

[John Turner]

OOC: Just pointing out, since it's lost somewhere in the previous page, that there are still some grammatical errors and other issues that, for the most part, have not been addressed.

And fixed. Last second bump before this goes to the floor.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

Hang on a moment, ambassador. Was it this proposal that was tagged as a replacement for GAR#351? Or are we thinking of a different draft?

[John Turner]

Hang on a moment, ambassador. Was it this proposal that was tagged as a replacement for GAR#351? Or are we thinking of a different draft?

Nope. I have a replacement for #351 ready to go.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=362722

[Pharthan]

"In lieu of lack of progress of further debate on this issue, Pharthan would like to add new suggestions:

• All reactor plants must be able to show protection against their own Design Basis Worst Case Scenario Causality, to include:
• Worst Case Scenario Decay Heat
• Lack of External-to-Facility Power Sources
• Worst Case Scenario Single-Instrumentation Failure

We believe this addition to be a good, logical addition, solid enough to make this resolution worthwhile, yet vague enough as to not be restrictive. We would also recommend the addition of the phrase 'not mobile under their own power' to the definition of reactors, as to purposefully exclude mobile power plants which present a much reduced danger; the real threat proposed by nuclear power is not the power plant or fallout itself, but instead the fear of the people who fail to understand it."