[Passed] Repeal "Nuclear Power Safety Act"

[Frisbeeteria]

Submitted for a test run! Delegates, please approve here!

Ok... so the repeal was narrowly defeated, so I figure we should probably re-draft, but keep many of the clauses the way they already are and re-add the hoping clause. Thoughts and suggestions (especially other clauses/changes) are highly welcome!

Repeal "Nuclear Power Safety Act"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#204 | Proposed by: Bergnovinaia

Argument:

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

CONCERNED that the Resolution in question establishes the NESC and its duties but does not require nations to comply with its suggestions;

ADDITIONALLY VEXED that the NESC's sole mandate is to recommend that member-states implement measures already required under extant international law such as GA #60 Nuclear Disaster Response Act and GA #105 Preparing for Disasters;

NOTING that in the case of GA #60, member nations are ordered to deal with nuclear crises in specific ways;

RECOGNIZING that in GA #105, member states are required to respect nuclear facilities for safety reasons;

FURTHER NOTING GA #204's author's ignorance to the protocols for work place safety in GA #7 Workplace Safety Standards Act which specifically outlines guidelines for safe work environments, as well as protocols for individuals who have to handle hazardous materials;

FRUSTRATED with the oversight of the previous pieces of legislation and the potential dangers created in GA #204 in the following clauses;

APPALLED at the idea that energy corporations and national nuclear energy industries may pick and choose guidelines that suit their corporation’s or nation’s needs without regards to civilian safety;

WORRIED that in order to maximize energy output and profits, corporations and national nuclear energy industries will cut corners, putting the everyday worker and civilian in harm's way from the many dangers of radiation from nuclear power;

TROUBLED that the mandate that member nations “follow adequate building designs" to construct nuclear power plant facilities may lead to corporations or national energy industries using older, more hazardous plans deemed as "adequate”;

ANXIOUS that while nations are required to "establish procedures and arrangements to maintain safety and stability", that they are not required to update these procedures on a regular basis;

FRIGHTENED that the same mandate does not give any real form of direction and thus gives corporations and national energy industries the freedom to implement potentially inefficient and non-protective safety codes;

HOPING that any future resolutions related to safety in Nuclear Power address these issues and consider their necessity based on previous pieces of legislation;

REPEALS GA Resolution #204.

The World Assembly:

NOTING that General Assembly Resolution #204, "Nuclear Power Safety Act", establishes the Nuclear Energy Safety Commission (NESC) and its duties but does not require nations to comply with its recommendations;

REGRETTING that the NESC's sole mandate is to recommend that member-states implement measures already required under extant international law such as GA#60: Nuclear Disaster Response Act and GA#105: Preparing for Disasters;

NOTING that GA#60 already mandates that member nations take specific measures to deal with nuclear crises;

RECOGNIZING that GA#105 already requires member states to inspect nuclear facilities for safety reasons;

FURTHER NOTING that GA#7: Workplace Safety Standards Act already establishes guidelines for safe work environments, as well as protocols for individuals who have to handle hazardous materials;

FRUSTRATED by the oversights of the author of GA#204 regarding the above legislation as well as the potential dangers created by GA#204 as follows:

• APPALLED that GA#204 allows energy corporations and national nuclear energy industries to pick and choose guidelines that suit their corporation’s or nation’s needs without regards to civilian safety;
• WORRIED that in order to maximize energy output and profits, nuclear energy industries will cut corners, exposing workers and civilians to the many dangers of nuclear radiation;
• TROUBLED that the mandate that member nations “follow adequate building designs" to construct nuclear power plant facilities allows nuclear energy industries to use older, more hazardous plans deemed as "adequate”;
• ANXIOUS that nations are required to "establish procedures and arrangements to maintain safety and stability", but are not required to update these procedures on a regular basis;
• FRIGHTENED that the same mandate does not give any real form of direction and thus gives nuclear energy industries the freedom to implement potentially inefficient and non-protective safety codes;

CONCERNED also that GA#204 defines nuclear power as "the use of sustained nuclear fission to generate heat and do useful work", thereby excluding other forms of energy generation by nuclear processes, such as nuclear fusion, from safety regulations;

HOPING that any future resolutions related to the safety of nuclear power address these issues, properly taking previous World Assembly legislation into account;

REPEALS General Assembly Resolution #204: Nuclear Power Safety Act.

Co-author: Ossitania

Comments and suggestions are welcome!

[Ossitania]

Perhaps I missed something in the last drafting session, but why aren't we emphasising the fact that 99% of what NPSA sets out and fails to do is already mandated by existing legislation? What about something like this;

"VEXED that the NESC's sole mandate is to recommend that member-states implement measures already required under extant international law"

[Bergnovinaia]

Perhaps I missed something in the last drafting session, but why aren't we emphasising the fact that 99% of what NPSA sets out and fails to do is already mandated by existing legislation? What about something like this;

"VEXED that the NESC's sole mandate is to recommend that member-states implement measures already required under extant international law"

It has been added to the proposal. Too bad we cannot cite other laws, but that would be house of cards, I believe.

[Ossitania]

Perhaps I missed something in the last drafting session, but why aren't we emphasising the fact that 99% of what NPSA sets out and fails to do is already mandated by existing legislation? What about something like this;

"VEXED that the NESC's sole mandate is to recommend that member-states implement measures already required under extant international law"

It has been added to the proposal. Too bad we cannot cite other laws, but that would be house of cards, I believe.

Actually, citing other resolutions is allowed in repeals, since they're unrepealable, I believe.

[Linux and the X]

It has been added to the proposal. Too bad we cannot cite other laws, but that would be house of cards, I believe.

Actually, citing other resolutions is allowed in repeals, since they're unrepealable, I believe.

The reasoning is less that repeals are unrepealable and more that they only actually have to remain relevant long enough to be passed.

[Bergnovinaia]

Actually, citing other resolutions is allowed in repeals, since they're unrepealable, I believe.

The reasoning is less that repeals are unrepealable and more that they only actually have to remain relevant long enough to be passed.

So then I shall cite other resolutions in the piece!

[Bergnovinaia]

Ok... some edits are made in red and blue.

[Ossitania]

Don't forget good ol' GA #7, which already deals with safety in the workplace, including construction standards and proper handling of chemicals.

[Bergnovinaia]

Don't forget good ol' GA #7, which already deals with safety in the workplace, including construction standards and proper handling of chemicals.

Noted in blue and underlined! Gracias!

[Individuality-ness]

At this rate, maybe we should have the honored delegation from Ossitania be another co-author.

[Bergnovinaia]

At this rate, maybe we should have the honored delegation from Ossitania be another co-author.

Except we cannot have two............

[Individuality-ness]

At this rate, maybe we should have the honored delegation from Ossitania be another co-author.

Except we cannot have two............

I know that... now we're back to square two.

[Bergnovinaia]

Except we cannot have two............

I know that... now we're back to square two.

Yeah... :/ Although....... Wait, idk?

[Individuality-ness]

I know that... now we're back to square two.

Yeah... :/ Although....... Wait, idk?

Square 1 was writing the proposal. Square two: co-authorship.

[Bergnovinaia]

Any additional commentary???

[Bergnovinaia]

After much consideration and consultation with my previous co-author, Individuality-ness, I have decided to award co-authorship to Ossitania, should they wish to receive it. Both I and my previous co-author feel that their contributions to the new re-draft are highly significant and should be awarded the co-authorship.

[Forces of Beelzebub]

SUPPORT

[Kryozerkia]

SUPPORT

The use of smileys is best done in moderation. This is not moderation and is in fact spam. This is your unofficial warning - knock it off. No one (save for yourself) finds it amusing.

[Linux and the X]

SUPPORT

:clap:

The use of smileys is best done in moderation. This is not moderation and is in fact spam. This is your unofficial warning - knock it off. No one (save for yourself) finds it amusing.

So I can post smiley spam in Moderation now?

[Funkadelia]

I'm glad you're redrafting this proposal. When I first came up with the idea, however, most of my region-mates supported the act, except for the fact it ignored fusion. I feel the lack of coverage for fusion power is an important part that needs to be addressed.

[Bergnovinaia]

I'm glad you're redrafting this proposal. When I first came up with the idea, however, most of my region-mates supported the act, except for the fact it ignored fusion. I feel the lack of coverage for fusion power is an important part that needs to be addressed.

I really feel like the lack of mention of fusion power is rather unimportant given the other attacks on the resolution in the repeal.

[Ossitania]

I'm glad you're redrafting this proposal. When I first came up with the idea, however, most of my region-mates supported the act, except for the fact it ignored fusion. I feel the lack of coverage for fusion power is an important part that needs to be addressed.

I really feel like the lack of mention of fusion power is rather unimportant given the other attacks on the resolution in the repeal.

The more the merrier, I say.

[Discoveria]

(OOC)

Some thoughts below. If I were to rewrite/recast the resolution in my own style (not that I've ever written any before) you can see that at the end of this post.

RECOGNIZING that in GA #105, member states are required to respect nuclear facilities for safety reasons;

You mean 'inspect', not "respect".

APPALLED at the idea that energy corporations and national nuclear energy industries may pick and choose guidelines that suit their corporation’s or nation’s needs without regards to civilian safety;

I would strengthen this to "APPALLED that GA#204 allows energy corporations..."

WORRIED that in order to maximize energy output and profits, corporations and national nuclear energy industries will cut corners, putting the everyday worker and civilian in harm's way from the many dangers of radiation from nuclear power;

TROUBLED that the mandate that member nations “follow adequate building designs" to construct nuclear power plant facilities may lead to corporations or national energy industries using older, more hazardous plans deemed as "adequate”;

ANXIOUS that while nations are required to "establish procedures and arrangements to maintain safety and stability", that they are not required to update these procedures on a regular basis;

FRIGHTENED that the same mandate does not give any real form of direction and thus gives corporations and national energy industries the freedom to implement potentially inefficient and non-protective safety codes;

I don't actually see this as a problem, as solving it would lead towards micromanagement, but if others agree then that's fine.

As it stands I would vote for it.

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

NOTING that General Assembly Resolution #204, "Nuclear Power Safety Act", establishes the Nuclear Energy Safety Commission (NESC) and its duties but does not require nations to comply with its recommendations;

REGRETTING that the NESC's sole mandate is to recommend that member-states implement measures already required under extant international law such as GA#60: Nuclear Disaster Response Act and GA#105: Preparing for Disasters;

NOTING that GA#60 already mandates that member nations take specific measures to deal with nuclear crises;

RECOGNIZING that GA#105 already requires member states to inspect nuclear facilities for safety reasons;

FURTHER NOTING that GA#7: Workplace Safety Standards Act already establishes guidelines for safe work environments, as well as protocols for individuals who have to handle hazardous materials;

FRUSTRATED by the oversights of the author of GA#204 regarding the above legislation as well as the potential dangers created by GA#204 as follows:

• APPALLED that GA#204 allows energy corporations and national nuclear energy industries to pick and choose guidelines that suit their corporation’s or nation’s needs without regards to civilian safety;
• WORRIED that in order to maximize energy output and profits, nuclear energy industries will cut corners, exposing workers and civilians to the many dangers of nuclear radiation;
• TROUBLED that the mandate that member nations “follow adequate building designs" to construct nuclear power plant facilities allows nuclear energy industries to use older, more hazardous plans deemed as "adequate”;
• ANXIOUS that nations are required to "establish procedures and arrangements to maintain safety and stability", but are not required to update these procedures on a regular basis;
• FRIGHTENED that the same mandate does not give any real form of direction and thus gives nuclear energy industries the freedom to implement potentially inefficient and non-protective safety codes;

CONCERNED also that GA#204 defines nuclear power as "the use of sustained nuclear fission to generate heat and do useful work", thereby excluding other forms of energy generation by nuclear processes, such as nuclear fusion, from safety regulations;

HOPING that any future resolutions related to the safety of nuclear power address these issues, properly taking previous World Assembly legislation into account;

REPEALS General Assembly Resolution #204: Nuclear Power Safety Act.

Co-author: Ossitania

EDITS: Some tidying up edits and fusion power added.

[Bergnovinaia]

snipped

We thank the ambassador for all their suggestions and we put in all the suggestions exactly the way the ambassador suggested.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

We support this proposal. The Nuclear Power Safety Act is nothing less than either an ill-thought out or a deliberately reprehensible scaremongering attempt to suffocate nuclear power plants under unnecessary bureaucracy. We are also opposed as it renders contracts giving non-governmental independent agencies the responsibility for nuclear power plants null and void, requiring governments to take all of the blame if private sectors or even foreign powers break laws; and furthermore the act fails to directly require private sector nuclear power plants to follow even 'adequate' building designs. It is as ill thought out as an act passed banning governments from transporting drugs into a foreign country, not banning subjects of that government from forcing governments to transport drugs into a foreign country, and then forcing those governments to take the blame if their subjects independently transported drugs illegally into a foreign country, and it is utterly ridiculous.