[PASSED] Nuclear Power Safety Act

[Cowardly Pacifists]

It assumes nations are eager to have nuclear meltdowns within their own borders and are willing to lie and cheat to make sure it happens.

Then why would it, as the Eternal Kawaii notes, leave so much freedom for nations to decide how to develop their internal policy on nuclear safety?

My impression is that the proposal leaves freedom to nations largely by mistake. Clearly the bill intended to create an oversight agency that would promulgate safety standards (a quite intricate one at that, given the five enumerated responsibilities of the NESC) but simply failed to actually require nations to follow the standards set by the oversight agency. Poor drafting is the culprit.

The whole business of this proposal is prompted by the notion that nations might not regulate nuclear plants safely on their own - why else create the NESC? Unfortunately, the drafters seem to have completely forgotten that they created the NESC (presumably) for a reason, as they utterly failed to oblige nations to follow the NESC's guidelines.

That's why the proposal is both intrusive and pointless. It creates a meddlesome bureaucracy that doesn't even have any power to affect changes in policy.

[Conservative America]

pointless.

[Vorkosigan Vashnoi]

Vorkosigan Vashnoi opposes this proposal on the grounds that it is an unwarranted intrusion into national sovereignty. We are entirely capable of overseeing our own nuclear power plants.

We find additional inducements in the arguments of those who have spoken against the proposal so far.

[Discoveria]

OOC: The amount of effort required to make an informed decision on this resolution has been so high that I'm introducing Discoveria's new WA ambassador to make it slightly more entertaining to comment. Apologies in advance for the extreme level of detail in spoilers.

IC:

"Silvadus' Nuclear Power Safety Act has been reviewed by the Discoverian Office of Foreign Affairs. We find it to be relatively poorly written, and while it will have some benefit if it passes, we feel that on balance the Act requires more development to offset the negative points already raised by the delegates from Cowardly Pacifists and Knootoss," said Matthew Turing, the newly appointed Discoverian Ambassador to the World Assembly. "Discoveria will therefore be voting AGAINST the resolution."

Ambassador Turing returned to his seat. On the desk in front of him were the following reports:

OOC:

Analysis of the proposed Nuclear Power Safety Act

DEFINING nuclear power as the use of sustained nuclear fission to generate heat and do useful work,

1. This act will not cover nuclear fusion if it ever becomes a viable source of nuclear power.
2. It could be argued that nuclear weapons 'use sustained nuclear fission to generate heat and do useful work' if you consider incinerating an enemy city to be useful work.
These are merely minor issues.

RECOGNIZING that nuclear power is an efficient and abundant source of power,

AWARE that many nations use nuclear power as a source of power and some use it as a main source of power,

REALIZING the potential hazards of nuclear power such as nuclear waste and nuclear accidents that can cause long term damage to people’s health and the environment,

BELIEVING that most hazards caused by nuclear power can be easily prevented or dealt with responsibly,

CONCERNED that some nations may not have well-established safety standards for nuclear power and may be at risk of nuclear hazards,

ESTABLISHES the Nuclear Energy Safety Commission (NESC) to promote and oversee the safety standards of nuclear power plants,

Filler, but no objectionable clauses.

SHALL grant the NESC the responsibilities of:
I. The inspection of nuclear energy power plants for the purpose of evaluating safety protocols,

Nuclear power plants are already inspected by nations under the provisions of GA resolution #105: Preparing for Disasters: "II. Demands member states to regularly inspect structures such as dams, levees, nuclear facilities, and any other structures or vehicles which hold materials which, if the structure were to malfunction, could precipitate a disaster in the immediate area...(a) Member states shall share the findings of these inspections with the WADB". The resolution at vote will create a WA bureaucracy to inspect nuclear power plants, which is simply inefficient. Nuclear plants will now be inspected twice - once by nations under GA#105, and once by the NESC's inspectors; even though the 'functional approach' is different, the end result is the same (reduction in the risk of nuclear disaster) so I find this double-inspection effect to be inefficient and unnecessary.

II. Determining the level of compliance of safety protocols in conjunction with standardized practices,

This is poorly worded. My reading of this clause is: 'the NESC is responsible for determining how the combination of safety protocols and standardised practices is compliant with' - with what? The clause does not specify. I suspect the author intended to say 'Determining the level of compliance of safety protocols with standardised practices', which would mean 'the NESC is responsible for determining whether a plant's safety protocols are consistent with standard practice'.

III. Determining which safety protocols are lacking, and inform facility management and the controlling government of deficiencies,
IV. Advising courses of action(s) needed to bring safety protocols and standards in line with standardized practices,

In other words, the NESC has an advisory capacity only, and cannot compel nations with serious failings to address their failings.
I note that this makes the NESC a pointless bureaucracy. Nations who are failing at nuclear safety only get advice; nations with a good record on nuclear safety do not need the NESC's advice.

V. Receiving and evaluating outstanding safety practices for implementation for standardization as “best practices”,

So the NESC looks at different plants' safety protocols and picks out the best ones? That seems nice, but the clause does not empower the NESC to actually implement these practices; it only allows the NESC to evaluate them. An oversight which renders the NESC pointless, again.

MANDATES the following for nations:
I. Take prime responsibility for risks caused by exposure to radiation while handling radioactive material for the purpose of nuclear power,

Currently no-one is explicitly responsible for this. A minor benefit.

II. Establish procedures and arrangements to maintain safety and stability while operating nuclear power plants,

One would presume that nuclear plant operators, seeking to stay in business (and more importantly, stay alive), already do this. The 'workplace safety' aspect of this is already covered by GA resolution #7: Workplace Safety Standards Act.

III. Have safety measures in place to prevent or have arrangements to deal with exposure to radiation while handling radioactive material,
IV. Follow adequate building designs for the construction of nuclear power plant facilities,
V. Establish proper regulations for facilities and activities dealing with the handling of radioactive materials for the purpose of generating power,

One presumes that nuclear plant operators do these things already. Micromanagement for minor benefit.

VI. Enforce regulations placed upon nuclear facilities and attempt to pass legislation to better the safety of said nuclear facilities,

I thought enforcement was the business of the WA gnomes, not nations. Enforcement of national (not WA) legislation should be taken for granted anyway. "attempt to pass legislation" seems weak.

Agreement with Cowardly Pacifist's arguments

The bureaucracy created by this proposal seems both intrusive and ineffectual. The NESC gets to inspect facilities, evaluate safety protocols, bitch about lack of compliance to management and government, and advise on ways to improve based on the "outstanding safety practices" they've seen. No where do I see anything that would actually compel a change. It looks like a bunch of WA nerds sitting around complaining about they way nations run their power plants without any real power to do anything about it.

I agree.

The Mandate provisions are quite troublesome. For one thing, it puts "responsibility for risks caused by exposure to radiation" on nations, not industry - which is contrary to the WA principle that environmental regulation should come "at the expense of industry."

Although I think having nations being responsible is an improvement on the status quo, I do agree that the responsibility properly belongs to the plant operator, not Discoveria's Office of Public Services.

Plus, we've got a WA mandate for following "adequate building designs," though absolutely no provision is made for the placement of nuclear power plants away from schools, churches, aquifers, and what have you. While assuring nuclear facilities are "adequate" for that purpose is a laudable goal, the half step seems strange to me: why get the WA all hot and bothered over building design and then say absolutely nothing about where that (still quite dangerous) building may be placed. Especially since a "poorly designed" nuclear facility placed in the middle of barren desert is less of an environmental risk than a facility designed by Frank Lloyd Wright but situated next to a city's drinking supply.

I would not mind this being implemented in a revised version of this resolution. However, it seems like a demand for micromanagement.

The Mandate V seems to completely eviscerate the need for the NESC committee created earlier in the proposal. You never made the NESC's suggestions binding, and now you're giving the responsibility of "establishing proper regulations for facilities and activities dealing with the handling of radioactive materials for the purpose of generating power" over to nations What sense does it make to have a WA committee commenting on regulations at all if you then empower nations to establish regulations themselves. A nations might well claim that their regulations are "proper" (i.e. good; marked by suitability, rightness, or appropriateness) even if they don't comply with the NESC's advice on standardized practices.

I generally agree.

But what's with the "attempt to pass legislation to better the safety of said nuclear facilities" part? That sounds dangerously close to an optionality problem or meta-gaming problem to me. Shouldn't you just tell them to "pass additional legislation to better the safety of said nuclear facilities," rather than "attempt" to do that? Or would that be one step too far in meddling with national law?

I note this problem also.

Thoughts on Ossitania's appeal/Secretariat ruling

I find it somewhat bizarre that the Secretariat reads GA resolution #105: Preparing for Disasters as implying that "the "disaster" would be external". I fail to see any wording in the resolution to indicate this. In fact, since the author specifically mentions "nuclear facilities", one would think that the resolution is specifically designed to prevent nuclear disasters among other forms of disaster. Nuclear meltdowns clearly fit the resolution's definition of a disaster.

In addition, although the Secretariat's response uses the term "natural disaster" in quotation marks, I note that the words "natural disaster" (and indeed, the word "natural") does not actually appear in GA#105, so I fail to reach the conclusion that GA#105 focuses on natural disasters.

Despite these concerns, I do accept the Secretariat's conclusion that

The duplication and contradiction claims are based around the idea that they're already regulated in certain ways. We see no reason why additional regulation would be precluded, as long as it comes from a different functional approach.

Thoughts on Knootoss's arguments

Nuclear preparedness has been done and done again. The mods have ruled this proposal barely legal because it has a "functionally different approach" to the problem. But we already have:

#60 Nuclear Disaster Response Act - Created an agency for cleanup assistance with and independent investigation of nuclear disasters. Also mandates in minute detail how nuclear response should be dealt with by nations, including multilingual road signs to warn people away.
#119 - Nuclear Testing Safety - regulates nuclear tests but also created a committee to regulate "atomic-related functions"
#105 - Preparing for Disasters - created an agency to inspect nuclear power plants and other structures, mandates that nations create a national response plan, issues warnings to monitoring agencies, etc.
#116 Nuclear Waste Safety Act - issues a whole bunch of regulations related to the trading and regulation of nuclear waste, including the conditions in which it can be stored.

Having scrutinised each resolution Knootoss cites, I fail to see how they relate to the current resolution (with the exception of GA#105: Preparing for Disasters). As Knootoss describes above - they actually do separate things, none of them things that the current resolution intends to do. I agree fully with Knootoss's argument about duplicating GA#105.

Frankly, the "Nuclear Power Safety Act" does nothing that hasn't already been done, and it would create the FOURTH World Assembly committee that nuclear power plants would need to abide the regulations of (in addition to national regulations) in order to be allowed to operate.

I think, instead, the Nuclear Power Safety Act does very little that hasn't already been done. I don't think the number of committees governing nuclear power is important. It's just a shame that the NESC would be so ineffective.

From a safety management perspective, having four different international agencies based on five WA resolutions AND the mandatory regulations by national governments who have their own agencies in place is a recipe for a nightmarish Hurricane Katrina-style disaster where everyone is responsible so that nobody is responsible for the whole mess. Having ANOTHER agency is harmful, not helpful.

Not really. Each committee has a separate remit, as already described.

I think Knootoss's main argument - duplication of the effect of GA#105 - is reason enough to vote against this resolution.

Edited to give Knootoss more credit for their argument.

[Evangaurt]

Vorkosigan Vashnoi opposes this proposal on the grounds that it is an unwarranted intrusion into national sovereignty. We are entirely capable of overseeing our own nuclear power plants.

We find additional inducements in the arguments of those who have spoken against the proposal so far.

Until Nuclear Fallout, and the world economy are no longer dependent upon other nations, this is hardly an unwarranted intrusion.

If the representative from Vorkosigan Vashnoi feels that they should not have to have both safety nets and fail-safes upon their nuclear power facilities, perhaps they are not responsible enough to have them.

[Armenika]

Any attempt to damage Armenika's economy will be considered a declaration of war, no matter the details. Turning down this resolution would be wise, as we are among the strongest 5% states on Nationstates.

[Vorkosigan Vashnoi]

Vorkosigan Vashnoi opposes this proposal on the grounds that it is an unwarranted intrusion into national sovereignty. We are entirely capable of overseeing our own nuclear power plants.

We find additional inducements in the arguments of those who have spoken against the proposal so far.

Until Nuclear Fallout, and the world economy are no longer dependent upon other nations, this is hardly an unwarranted intrusion.

If the representative from Vorkosigan Vashnoi feels that they should not have to have both safety nets and fail-safes upon their nuclear power facilities, perhaps they are not responsible enough to have them.

The representative from Vorkosigan Vashnoi is unimpressed. "My honorable colleague, the representative from Evenguart, fails to understand that a nation can take action without being compelled. The government of Vorkosigan Vashnoi, which represents our people, is far better placed to judge our national priorities and needs than a group of WA bureaucrats. My honorable colleague's assertion that Vorkosigan Vashnoi must therefore be irresponsible with its nuclear materials is too absurd to merit reply."

[Iron Confederation]

Vorkosigan Vashnoi opposes this proposal on the grounds that it is an unwarranted intrusion into national sovereignty. We are entirely capable of overseeing our own nuclear power plants.

We find additional inducements in the arguments of those who have spoken against the proposal so far.

The delegate of the Iron Confederation agrees with this statement. The Iron Conrfederation agrees that is is reasonaoble to attempt to check nuclear fallout, but this goes too far.

[Datavia]

So, since there is none of the aforementioned GA resolutions that established an international organization for standards and overseeing on this delicate matter which affects international safety, Datavia votes FOR this needed resolution, and encourages every responsible nation to do the same.

Except that the Organisation this Resolution creates doesn't actually do what you just said it does.

Last time I checked it out, the resolution stated:

"ESTABLISHES the Nuclear Energy Safety Commission (NESC) to promote and oversee the safety standards of nuclear power plants,"

And then indexes the responsabilities of such organization (which I don't paste here just for the sake of having you to read it carefully, without tormenting other, more diligent ambassadors).

[Datavia]

Any attempt to damage Armenika's economy will be considered a declaration of war, no matter the details. Turning down this resolution would be wise, as we are among the strongest 5% states on Nationstates.

Datavia is probably one of the feeblest 5% states on Nationstates, but we are still unimpressed. If you don't like democratic decisions, put your chunk of land in a bucket and take it away from the WA.

[The Blue crown]

I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make here. This resolution deals with nuclear power, not nuclear weapons.

true im for nukes and nuke power but cant we make up our own desicions for once

This is quite a communist idea. Sure the nuclear would make good weapons, but who would be enough cruel to use it against a nation? exept for a corrupt nation where ALL THE CITZENS would be corrupt, like 2 million people at a time

[Lemmingtopias]

Except that the Organisation this Resolution creates doesn't actually do what you just said it does.

Last time I checked it out, the resolution stated:

"ESTABLISHES the Nuclear Energy Safety Commission (NESC) to promote and oversee the safety standards of nuclear power plants,"

And then indexes the responsabilities of such organization (which I don't paste here just for the sake of having you to read it carefully, without tormenting other, more diligent ambassadors).

Last time I checked it out, there are no provisions to enforce the recommendations of the NESC, thus making it little more than an over glorified prize awards panel for the safest Nuclear Power Plants. Might I suggest you actually read the legislation carefully before trying to claim another Ambassador hasn't done the same? Glass houses and all that. Bless.

[Nikoslavia]

Clearly the GA is trying to overstep their reach with this resolution. We will not stand for any attempt by the international community to violate our national sovereignty. The proud Nikoslavians will vote no on this resolution.
- Nikoslavian World Assembly Ambassador Vladimir Zakharov

[Philimbesi]

The lack of defined standards causes the High Court of the United States to classify this as a threat to the health and welfare of the people of the United States and as such, sanctions Executive Order 34896b instructing the Government of the United States of Philimbesi to disregard either in whole or in part upon passage the mandates of the WA Resolution entitled Nuclear Power Safety Act.

This order also instructs the Department of Nuclear Safety to continue using the standards they have developed and empowers them to freely ignore any obviously unsafe advice given to them by the NESC.

This refusal to comply shall remain in effect for as long as the World Assembly continues to endorse safety inspections with no defined standards.

Any funds required to pay any and all restitution or penalties to the WA generated by this non-compliance shall be provided by from the General Operating Reserve.

Justice Judy Breslin
High Court Chief Justice United States of Philimbesi.

[Retired WerePenguins]

Any attempt to damage Armenika's economy will be considered a declaration of war, no matter the details. Turning down this resolution would be wise, as we are among the strongest 5% states on Nationstates.

Three small penguins enter the chamber and fall down laughing

After five minutes, they get up. One actually gets to the podium. "Don't touch me! I like you. You're funny. Our military budget is like 45 times more than yours is and we are, frankly, mediocre. I'll give you a bit of friendly advise. Joining the WA has damaged your economy. If you don't want your economy hurt, leave now while you are still able. If you think your nation can handle the hurt, man up and stay."

The small penguin turns to leave the podium but changes her mind.

"Oh yea, the resolution is manure. Vote NO."

[Datavia]

Last time I checked it out, there are no provisions to enforce the recommendations of the NESC, thus making it little more than an over glorified prize awards panel for the safest Nuclear Power Plants. Might I suggest you actually read the legislation carefully before trying to claim another Ambassador hasn't done the same? Glass houses and all that. Bless.

Virtually no GA resolution establishes direct WA enforcement (how could it?), but that of the member nations themselves. Standards and neutrally collected information set the basis for any eventual denouncement by an affected nation, and further ad hoc condemnation by the WA.

[Lemmingtopias]

Last time I checked it out, there are no provisions to enforce the recommendations of the NESC, thus making it little more than an over glorified prize awards panel for the safest Nuclear Power Plants. Might I suggest you actually read the legislation carefully before trying to claim another Ambassador hasn't done the same? Glass houses and all that. Bless.

Virtually no GA resolution establishes direct WA enforcement (how could it?), but that of the member nations themselves. Standards and neutrally collected information set the basis for any eventual denouncement by an affected nation, and further ad hoc condemnation by the WA.

You are clutching at straws with your spin argument. I haven't suggested that the WA directly enforces anything, merely that it actually mandates that Member Nations adhere to the standards set by NESC, which is currently does not.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Last time I checked it out, there are no provisions to enforce the recommendations of the NESC, thus making it little more than an over glorified prize awards panel for the safest Nuclear Power Plants. Might I suggest you actually read the legislation carefully before trying to claim another Ambassador hasn't done the same? Glass houses and all that. Bless.

Virtually no GA resolution establishes direct WA enforcement (how could it?), but that of the member nations themselves. Standards and neutrally collected information set the basis for any eventual denouncement by an affected nation, and further ad hoc condemnation by the WA.

Here's what it looks like when an agency is actually empowered with authority over safety standards:

CHARGES the WAFDRA with the responsibility to ensure that the food and drug regulatory agencies of member-states are performing satisfactorily; also to gradually implement reforms to the quality regulation authorities of member-states

MANDATES that such reforms shall include:
...
ASSERTS that in nations where there is no system of quality control the WAFDRA shall work with the national government to eventually establish such agencies

EMPOWERS the WAFDRA order the closure of any food and drug regulatory facilities that are found to repeatedly fail to succeed in ensuring the quality of the products being inspected;

Compare that to this Act's NESC, which only has power to "promote" and "oversee" safety. Whereas the WAFDRA has the power of a "MANDATES" clause, the NESC is more like an "ENCOURAGES" clause. The NESC gets to monitor whats going on and increase awareness of safety, but they've got no power to require that their suggestions be implemented. In fact, this Act expressly gives that power to nations, not the NESC, when it "MANDATES the following for nations:... Establish procedures and arrangements to maintain safety and stability while operating nuclear power plants"

[Datavia]

While it is true that "Food and Drug Standards" empowers WAFDRA to the closure of regulatory facilities, it can be argued that it actually doesn't establlish any provisions for the enforcement of that power. Which begs the question: how specific must GA resolutions be? And how much intervention is too much intervention or a breach of national sovereingty. According to the current vote, most nations are content with establishing international standards and being able to know what's up in that suspicious nuclear plant of their neighbour.

Which is what standardizing and overseeing are about.

[Shoenice]

I'm not so sure about this proposal. Well basically, what if my nation wants to manufacture nuclear weapons? That's a no-no in the World Assembly, so with this new bill, it would allow inspectors to come by and see what I'm building!

That means I'd get in trouble. And basically, I don't want to get in trouble with the World Assembly, so I'll vote against this if I ever join.

[Ossitania]

I'm not so sure about this proposal. Well basically, what if my nation wants to manufacture nuclear weapons? That's a no-no in the World Assembly, so with this new bill, it would allow inspectors to come by and see what I'm building!

That means I'd get in trouble. And basically, I don't want to get in trouble with the World Assembly, so I'll vote against this if I ever join.

That's a no-no? With all due respect, are you fucking blind!?

[Shoenice]

Well basically, I ate my brain a few months back. In 15 seconds to be exact.

I guess they are allowed, but with these inspectors coming in and inspecting, what if they tell everyone that I am manufacturing nuclear weapons? I wouldn't want it to get out, if you see what I'm saying. Some of my allies wouldn't like that fact.

Or what if I wanted to sabotage my nuclear facilities to teach my citizens a lesson, or just for fun? You know, play a little prank on them? C'mon, I don't want the WA ruining my plans.

[Ossitania]

Well basically, I ate my brain a few months back. In 15 seconds to be exact.

I guess they are allowed, but with these inspectors coming in and inspecting, what if they tell everyone that I am manufacturing nuclear weapons? I wouldn't want it to get out, if you see what I'm saying. Some of my allies wouldn't like that fact.

I don't see how they can find that out unless you're stupid enough to manufacture your nuclear weapons inside power plants.

[Shoenice]

I told you, I ate my brain... basically.

And it'd be convenient. Do you know how much secret weapon manufacturing facilitates cost? They cost a lot of dough, and it's only convient to manufacture weapons right where nuclear power is created!

[Cowardly Pacifists]

I told you, I ate my brain... basically.

And it'd be convenient. Do you know how much secret weapon manufacturing facilitates cost? They cost a lot of dough, and it's only convient to manufacture weapons right where nuclear power is created!

To the extent that this Act would prevent some lazy nations from manufacturing nuclear weapons because building a separate, unregulated facility isn't "convient" [sic], maybe I'm wrong about it being utterly useless.