[PASSED] Nuclear Power Safeguards Act

[Pharthan]

"Ambassador Fulton, I understand your concern, and your question is quite valid. In fact, the number 'four' was partly chosen for the reason you specified. The short answer is 'Redundancy.' The longer answer; some nations may have advanced to the point that they only need four. To spell it out: The 'End-all-be-all' decay heat removal type systems are often almost impossible to implement in any fashion that would allow them to be used for anything else; this essentially leaves you with three methods, one being heat-loss-to-ambient, which is a freebie everyone gets for the simple fact of existing, but most specifically annotated because, if it is able to also be the absolute 'End-all-be-all' method, it means that you've developed a reactor that only needs one method of DHR, and to weed out the loophole that this resolution would not allow for extensive maintenance and refueling if that clause did not exist. This is possible in very-small reactors and nuclear devices much moreso than larger ones, in which losses-to-ambient may also be a very valid form of DHR

"To get back to the point: You have three methods of DHR other than the ultimate one designed to ensure 'Thou Shalt Not Melt Down, right? One of these is also used for at-power operations, so it's pretty much good for anything that might come you way. But losses to ambient is not always sufficient, so in truth the statement requires three, and we must - for reasons your nuclear engineers might be able to impress upon you - assume that this method might fail, and so a backup is needed - sort of like why you don't want to fly in a one-engine airliner. If that one engine fails, you're a goner.
"Therefore, four. One as primary method, one as a backup, one to prevent a meltdown, and one as a freebie to ensure we can close up all clauses neatly.

"That being said, we understand this reads rather technically. It was intended to. There are certain things on this planet which cannot be flexed.

As for the unclear language in 2b, that is to state, without using so many characters: If your reactor physically cannot melt down because you can remove all decay heat by losses-to-ambient, you need only have that as a single method of DHR, and the 'four' requirement may be forgotten. In Six: Make sure you don't irradiate the population too much.

As for the typos, we don't claim to be English Teachers, we're nuclear technicians, right?" He joked a bit. "But, truly, we should have looked that over a bit more."

[Bananaistan]

2. Ensure that all reactors must have available:

1. Four provided methods of Decay Heat Removal (DHR) with two methods to implement each.
   
   1. One DHR method may be the same as normal power-operation heat-removal.
   2. In addition to 2aI, one method must be able to account for Design Worst Case Decay Heat Generation (DHG) and still prevent a radiological disaster, without an external power source.
   3. Methods described in (2) must be resistant to natural disasters and their magnitudes they are susceptible to, to be determined by the NSO based on historical and geological data.
   4. One remaining DHR method may be heat loss to ambient.
   5. If (2) cannot be met, the reactor plant must stop operations which promote DHG.
2. Requirements of 2a need not be met if 2aII may be met by 2aIV.
3. Two methods of ceasing DHG processes are available capable of compensating for maximum possible reactor power at operation.
   
   1. One method must not require an external power source to the facility.

OOC: I know feck all about nuclear reactors except what the Simpsons has thought me but I know enough about the English language that I will be unable to support this proposal due to the tortuous circular referencing in this section. (EG 2aIII and 2aV need to clarified as to which part (2) refers to, and 2b seems to make the whole thing optional and has the circular reference, it effectively says that 2a need not be met if parts of 2a are met.)

[Pharthan]

2. Ensure that all reactors must have available:

1. Four provided methods of Decay Heat Removal (DHR) with two methods to implement each.
   
   1. One DHR method may be the same as normal power-operation heat-removal.
   2. In addition to 2aI, one method must be able to account for Design Worst Case Decay Heat Generation (DHG) and still prevent a radiological disaster, without an external power source.
   3. Methods described in (2) must be resistant to natural disasters and their magnitudes they are susceptible to, to be determined by the NSO based on historical and geological data.
   4. One remaining DHR method may be heat loss to ambient.
   5. If (2) cannot be met, the reactor plant must stop operations which promote DHG.
2. Requirements of 2a need not be met if 2aII may be met by 2aIV.
3. Two methods of ceasing DHG processes are available capable of compensating for maximum possible reactor power at operation.
   
   1. One method must not require an external power source to the facility.

OOC: I know feck all about nuclear reactors except what the Simpsons has thought me but I know enough about the English language that I will be unable to support this proposal due to the tortuous circular referencing in this section. (EG 2aIII and 2aV need to clarified as to which part (2) refers to, and 2b seems to make the whole thing optional and has the circular reference, it effectively says that 2a need not be met if parts of 2a are met.)

OOC: Semantics.
And long-story short: If your reactor can sufficiently prevent meltdown from all scenarios, you need not worry about any other DHR requirements; ergo, in that, it terminates, rather than being circular.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Semantics.
And long-story short: If your reactor can sufficiently prevent meltdown from all scenarios, you need not worry about any other DHR requirements; ergo, in that, it terminates, rather than being circular.

Excellent. If this passes we can be safe in the knowledge that we can just effectively ignore section 2 completely.

I'd suggest it's rather more than just semantics. That clause isn't at all clear about what its requirements are, and it does seem to be a major point of the whole proposal. And there are further such issues in other parts of the proposal.

I had intended to comment prior to today but I never got around to it. But neither had I known that you were in such a rush to submit again and I hadn't actually realised you had done so.

[Pharthan]

OOC: Semantics.
And long-story short: If your reactor can sufficiently prevent meltdown from all scenarios, you need not worry about any other DHR requirements; ergo, in that, it terminates, rather than being circular.

Excellent. If this passes we can be safe in the knowledge that we can just effectively ignore section 2 completely.

I'd suggest it's rather more than just semantics. That clause isn't at all clear about what its requirements are, and it does seem to be a major point of the whole proposal. And there are further such issues in other parts of the proposal.

I had intended to comment prior to today but I never got around to it. But neither had I known that you were in such a rush to submit again and I hadn't actually realised you had done so.

OOC: Sorry, what I had meant to type was that if your reactor can sufficiently prevent meltdown from all scenarios via losses-to-ambient, you need not worry about other DHR requirements.
As for the other parts... this subject can get really hard to put into layman's terms at times. I did my best, but I had a character limit to fight with.

[United Concordian States]

The Minister of International Affairs (United Concordian States) James Hunt from the United Concordian States stands at his podium, fixing his glasses to read the paper his government has given him to read. "The United Concordian States would like to give our opinion on this matter. While we may agree that there should be international standards on nuclear power as meltdowns and improper maintenance can cause unsafe radiological changes in international environments, which can cause loss of human life, we also feel that this resolution oversteps the boundaries of the World Assembly. We believe that it is the objective of the World Assembly to not only ensure that international standards are met, but that it is done in a way that it reflects international values. We believe that the World Assembly does not have the authority to dispatch investigators to international bodies and be able to then exercise punitive actions on said nations. There should be regulations on use of nuclear power, but the Assembly should not overstep it's values as a democratic and free organization. We would like to vote against this resolution and we welcome open discussion and opinion to our stance. Thank you."

[Pharthan]

"We can understand and respect your opinion, Minister Hunt, and in many cases we would agree that the WA should leave it's members to rule themselves; many such policies and rules would not work for all cultures or governments and that must be respected. However, we disagree - obviously as our nation is the one presenting this resolution - that this is one of those cases.
"While the largest effect of any meltdown would be on the nation itself, in most cases at least, coastal nuclear reactor meltdowns can cause harm to international populations of wildlife that other nation's rely upon. They might spread fallout to other nations via air currents, and they impact the international opinion of nuclear power, which, when operated properly, is the safest and often cheapest form of energy production which has yet to realize it's full potential in a large variety of applications. For these reasons we feel this is very much an international issue which must be internationally regulated.
"Previous nuclear safety resolutions were repealed for some of the very fixes that might also calm your concerns; previous resolutions did not have firm enough wording or strong enough enforcement. For us, this is very much a case of not being able to please all parties. To help placate this, we've loosened the inspection criteria for international inspectors to be far longer in periodicity than what we would have preferred to impose.
"Furthermore, plead that you look very much at the intent of the wording and powers provided to the organizations; punitive measures are far less outlined, rather assistance is the rather obvious goal."

[The Kauguhe]

"Honourable Delegates, owing to the worries raised that this resolution oversteps this Assembly's authority and does not wholly respect national sovereignty, on behalf of the Blessed Nations I shall be voting against this motion. Though, I would like to commend Ambassador Reynolds and the legislative team from Pharthan for bringing this issue to the attention of the Assembly. The preventative idea itself, if implemented, would safeguard many nations against catastrophe. However, a nation's sovereignty must always be upheld and the powers of the agency this resolution seeks to establish overstep the mark."

[Pharthan]

"Honourable Delegates, owing to the worries raised that this resolution oversteps this Assembly's authority and does not wholly respect national sovereignty, on behalf of the Blessed Nations I shall be voting against this motion. Though, I would like to commend Ambassador Reynolds and the legislative team from Pharthan for bringing this issue to the attention of the Assembly. The preventative idea itself, if implemented, would safeguard many nations against catastrophe. However, a nation's sovereignty must always be upheld and the powers of the agency this resolution seeks to establish overstep the mark."

"In light of this issue, should this resolution fail or be repealed, what corrections would you recommend be made to ensure both that international ideas be spread between national Nuclear Safety Organizations, as well as verification that all are properly monitoring and inspecting their own reactors?"

[Bears Armed Mission]

OOC: Shouldn't 2.V refer to "(2.II)" rather than just to "(2)"?

[The Kauguhe]

"In light of this issue, should this resolution fail or be repealed, what corrections would you recommend be made to ensure both that international ideas be spread between national Nuclear Safety Organizations, as well as verification that all are properly monitoring and inspecting their own reactors?"

"Honourable Ambassador, it is perhaps the need to seek verification that goes beyond this body's authority. Granted that for some issues verification should be sought, in the dismantlement of chemical armaments or such. However, to demand to inspect a sovereign state's infrastructure on this issue could offer insult to a state's ability to function safely and imply a lack of trust. It goes beyond a concern for safety to micromanage affairs that only the state should have authority over.

"I would humbly suggest the establishment of an advisory board instead. Encourage states to share their practices and experiences so that we can learn from each other and any experts appointed to that board. Such body's have been created before for other issues so one would assume that the majority of states are comfortable with this level of control placed in the WA's hands. As an example I refer you to GAR #296:

Instructs the WA Disaster Board to study and to distribute as appropriate information about fire hazards and fire-control methods; urges member nations to share all relevant data that they possess with the WADB; and offers this service to any non-WA nations that are interested.

"On a harder front, it could be required that each NSO's guidelines are in line with the board's requirements or approved by the board."

[Bananaistan]

We are unable to support this proposal and we have voted against. We have already highlighted what we feel are some issues with the wording and internal cross referencing within the proposal. In summary our concerns are as follows:

1) There appears to an unnecessary "of" in clause 2 of the definitions where the last part currently reads: "... exceeding of exposure limits..."
2) The "limits" clause is unclear. The two parts individually read ok, IE up to "their own power" and then from "to protect.." onwards. However taken together, I don't understand what that clause is trying to acheive.
3) References to (2) in clause 2aIII and 2aV of the NSO requirements need to be clarified.
4) Clause 2b of the NSO requirements needs to be clarified. I suspect that the "requirements of 2a" is missing a further subclause of 2a which you may have intended it to refer to.
5) Clause 3 of the NSO requirements appears to include a redundant "are available".
6) Just a minor suggestion, perhaps consider that the NSO should inform facility management in clause 3 of the NSO requirements, and similarly in clause 4 to facility management and operators. Only a suggestion though.
7) Clause 2 of the establishes part doesn't read particularly clearly at the end: "... maintain the organization operational." and could perhaps be restated.

[Pharthan]

We are unable to support this proposal and we have voted against. We have already highlighted what we feel are some issues with the wording and internal cross referencing within the proposal. In summary our concerns are as follows:

1) There appears to an unnecessary "of" in clause 2 of the definitions where the last part currently reads: "... exceeding of exposure limits..."
2) The "limits" clause is unclear. The two parts individually read ok, IE up to "their own power" and then from "to protect.." onwards. However taken together, I don't understand what that clause is trying to acheive.
3) References to (2) in clause 2aIII and 2aV of the NSO requirements need to be clarified.
4) Clause 2b of the NSO requirements needs to be clarified. I suspect that the "requirements of 2a" is missing a further subclause of 2a which you may have intended it to refer to.
5) Clause 3 of the NSO requirements appears to include a redundant "are available".
6) Just a minor suggestion, perhaps consider that the NSO should inform facility management in clause 3 of the NSO requirements, and similarly in clause 4 to facility management and operators. Only a suggestion though.
7) Clause 2 of the establishes part doesn't read particularly clearly at the end: "... maintain the organization operational." and could perhaps be restated.

OOC: Your previous statements came after submission.

1) As with others before you, I thank you for pointing out superficial issues with the resolution, but they would have been more useful in the full month before submission occurred. But I don't see how superficial issues make for an argument against a resolution.

2) Does not pertain to mobile reactors. As in, if you're using it to power a vehicle, vessel, et cetera, does not apply. If it's used on a barge that is propelled by a diesel engine, it does.

3) Stated as (2) to refer to all methods of that clause; if DHR cannot be maintained, reactor must be shut down.

4) Nope. 2aII refers to an end-all-be-all method of DHR that can counteract any meltdown. 2aIV refers to a DHR method being Heat Losses to Ambient; if your reactor can be protected by nothing more than Heat Losses to Ambient, you're fine and don't have to worry about any other method of DHR.

5) ?

6) Eh. Maybe.

7) How would you restate it?

[Two Chaoses]

After reviewing the resolution and the debate that ensued, the Duochaosean Cabinet, Parliament, and other legislative and legal bodies have decided to vote in favor of this resolution. While this does cross international borders, the threat posed by nuclear accidents makes this necessary.

[Sirath]

If the nation does not have anything to hide about their Nuclear safety, why turn away inspections? as always, these inspectors will have to be internationally recognized and not under the influence of their home nations.

Voting against the act is anti-social and anti-environmental. We urge the Assembly to do it not for the world nor your neighbors but for the citizens who you represent. Vote YES for the Nuclear Power Safeguards Act

[Philimbesi]

Voting against the act is anti-social and anti-environmental. We urge the Assembly to do it not for the world nor your neighbors but for the citizens who you represent. Vote YES for the Nuclear Power Safeguards Act

Nigel smirks, and under his breath says "One could argue that relying on a method of power generation that could blow up and turn entire nations into glass is in itself anti-environmental." He takes a deep breath puts down his whiskey tumbler and stands up.

"My esteemed colleagues I rise today to cast the USP's vote against this measure, while we agree wholeheartedly in its premise we feel as though the optional nature of some of it's clauses allows for loopholes in a subject matter than that really should not have them.

Further as the power plants in the USP have been converted to use Fusion technology rather than the technology depicted here, conversion of our power grid to comply with this is too expensive a prospect. "

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Your previous statements came after submission.

1) As with others before you, I thank you for pointing out superficial issues with the resolution, but they would have been more useful in the full month before submission occurred. But I don't see how superficial issues make for an argument against a resolution.

2) Does not pertain to mobile reactors. As in, if you're using it to power a vehicle, vessel, et cetera, does not apply. If it's used on a barge that is propelled by a diesel engine, it does.

3) Stated as (2) to refer to all methods of that clause; if DHR cannot be maintained, reactor must be shut down.

4) Nope. 2aII refers to an end-all-be-all method of DHR that can counteract any meltdown. 2aIV refers to a DHR method being Heat Losses to Ambient; if your reactor can be protected by nothing more than Heat Losses to Ambient, you're fine and don't have to worry about any other method of DHR.

5) ?

6) Eh. Maybe.

7) How would you restate it?

I'm well aware that my previous comments were after submission. The point of my post now was to point areas you could clean up should it not pass. As I have said before, it is my opinion that these issues seriously lesson the comprehension of the proposal. Your clarification regarding the mobile reactors clause exemption, for example, is all well and good but the proposal does not say that, or at least it certainly doesn't appear to me to say that. As I said, I couldn't quite figure what it says at all. I would say that the same accusation could be made regarding clause 2 of the NSO requirements. You are clarifying now that X, Y And Z are the requirements that you want, however it's not at all clear in the proposal because of the poor cross referencing that this is the case.

Ofc a single misplaced of, which doesn't effect the meaning of the clause would not be enough to withdraw support, it's merely a suggestion for clarification should the proposal not pass. I had hoped my entire post would be seen as such.

[Xelta]

King Pat stands in shock. Not because of the the subject matter, which is way over his head (but don't let his people know that, or else), but because of the source of some nations' qualms with the proposal. Violently tossing the note cards giving praise for the premise and pros of voting for such a legislation, which were prepared for him by Xelta's Chief Engineer himself, the King says "If I know anything, it's how to be a grammar fanatic. Saying that, to sink a piece of legislation, having gone through so many drafts and revisions as this one has, simply because of some redundancies or incorrect use of prepositions is just preposterous. It's shameful in fact. The incorrect uses of grammar do not even marginally affect the message of the legislation or the ways to implement it. If this is the very best the opponents to the legislation can come up with as a defense to put their and other nations' citizens, environment, and, most importantly, their economies at risk, then there is little if no grounds to vote against the legislation. I will be submitting my vote as FOR this resolution simply because I do not see a reason to do otherwise, plus I do not want to risk any assets in the great nation of Xelta."

[The Kauguhe]

"Honourable Delegates, yes these grammar matters should have been addressed by us before bringing this motion before the Assembly and it could be understood how it comes across as unimportant. However, is the resolution were to become binding and used in judgements against transgressors, then it must be free of such inadequacies if the system is to function. A piece of legislature must be grammatically sound if one expects it to become a binding source of international law."

[Normlpeople]

Voting against the act is anti-social and anti-environmental. We urge the Assembly to do it not for the world nor your neighbors but for the citizens who you represent. Vote YES for the Nuclear Power Safeguards Act

"I have already gone on record as opposing useless, economy killing job legislation, and I represent no citizens. I represent the Princess. Such a label is pointless."

OOC: Once again proving that anything with an environmental tag will attract the lemming vote regardless.

[The Dark Star Republic]

When a vote goes the way you want, it proves the resolution is bad.
When a vote doesn't go the way you want, it proves the voters are lemmings.

[Austropia]

The Queendom of Austropia stands for this resolution. We already have similar regulations on our nuclear power and will gladly comply with the demands in the resolution. We would like to mention that under the legislation as it is written in the final version it states:

"REQUIRES nations operating nuclear reactors applicable to this resolution to maintain their own the nuclear safety organization (NSO), to protect national and international populations..."

The important part is the wording of "their own". We are assuming this means that the following regulations will be inspected and maintained by the country's own NSO. This means that there is no worry of other nation intruding on personal affairs on their own. Any news of non-compliance to the resolution will be brought before the world assembly we would assume.

If we have misunderstood the passage, please let us know. As it stands now we stand for the vote.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

Note: Brother Maynard insisted on writing the official statement before going off to Mardi Gras. He muttered "King Cake" before he left. I'm pretty sure that King Cake isn't Vegan. Oh well, tomorrow's Lent.

The Organic Vegan Commune of Frustrated Franciscans
Official Delegation to the World Assembly
“We praise You, Lord, for Sister Death!”
Friar John Sanders, OFM Ambassador and WA representative
Friar Tuck Ferguson, OFM Assistant Ambassador
Brother Maynard, TOR Keeper of the Holy Hand-grenade

Although the nation of Frustrated Franciscans does not lean on nuclear power for energy generation (we probably should, of course, but that is a local issue), we rise in strong support of this exceptionally well written document. We do fear that, should this be approved, this could raise the bar for quality resolutions in this chamber. This is a fear I would welcome wholeheartedly.

Mind you, Liquid fluoride thorium reactors generally solve most if not all of the problems this resolution seeks to address.

[Pharthan]

OOC: Sorry for not replying to everything right now. Will work on more later when I get back from work.

The Queendom of Austropia stands for this resolution. We already have similar regulations on our nuclear power and will gladly comply with the demands in the resolution. We would like to mention that under the legislation as it is written in the final version it states:

"REQUIRES nations operating nuclear reactors applicable to this resolution to maintain their own the nuclear safety organization (NSO), to protect national and international populations..."

The important part is the wording of "their own". We are assuming this means that the following regulations will be inspected and maintained by the country's own NSO. This means that there is no worry of other nation intruding on personal affairs on their own. Any news of non-compliance to the resolution will be brought before the world assembly we would assume.

If we have misunderstood the passage, please let us know. As it stands now we stand for the vote.

"One of the chief problems surrounding having a localized nuclear safety organization and nothing higher is what we in the nuclear industry call 'groupthink.' This is usually only pertinant to smaller groups of individuals within a nuclear plant of, but can span an entire plant or even country. In short, 'groupthink' is when a group of people, for one reason or another unintentionally overlook flaws in a way of thinking largely because everyone else in the group, usually starting with a very intelligent person who is highly trusted, believes in the same way. It's less of a blind 'lemming' mentality and more of being able to rationalize why the group is thinking that way with logic and intelligence, save for one or two key flaws that bring the enough thought process down. Nuclear reactors are complicated things, and groupthink on behalf of certain issues has before been a key factor that could have saved a nuclear plant from destruction, and an entire nation failed to recognize the issue beforehand.
"Having an overarching World Nuclear Safety Organizaiton breaks this ability for 'Groupthink' that could ruin a nation. The only punitive measure they can provide is shutting down unsafe plants. We recognize that, for the most part, the national safety organization, would be adequate. However, Nuclear power is far more sensitive a subject; 'for the most part' isn't good enough. In light of that, the only time such punitive measures would be exacted would be when an entire nation's nuclear industry had overlooked a key, critical flaw that cannot be allowed to continue.
"Beyond that, the purpose of the World Nuclear Safety Organization is to spread knowledge and assistance, which is always beneficial."

Voting against the act is anti-social and anti-environmental. We urge the Assembly to do it not for the world nor your neighbors but for the citizens who you represent. Vote YES for the Nuclear Power Safeguards Act

Nigel smirks, and under his breath says "One could argue that relying on a method of power generation that could blow up and turn entire nations into glass is in itself anti-environmental." He takes a deep breath puts down his whiskey tumbler and stands up.

"One could argue that not understanding that a nuclear reactor physically can't 'blow up and turn entire nation's into glass,' due to their construction is anti-educational. This part of your argument is fatally flawed.

Further as the power plants in the USP have been converted to use Fusion technology rather than the technology depicted here, conversion of our power grid to comply with this is too expensive a prospect. "

"Excluding your one highly uneducated argument that is entirely wrong about Nuclear Fission, nuclear fusion provides only a few benefits over fission in regards to electrical production."

[The Sotoan Union]

Voting against the act is anti-social and anti-environmental. We urge the Assembly to do it not for the world nor your neighbors but for the citizens who you represent. Vote YES for the Nuclear Power Safeguards Act

Nigel smirks, and under his breath says "One could argue that relying on a method of power generation that could blow up and turn entire nations into glass is in itself anti-environmental." He takes a deep breath puts down his whiskey tumbler and stands up.

"My esteemed colleagues I rise today to cast the USP's vote against this measure, while we agree wholeheartedly in its premise we feel as though the optional nature of some of it's clauses allows for loopholes in a subject matter than that really should not have them.

Further as the power plants in the USP have been converted to use Fusion technology rather than the technology depicted here, conversion of our power grid to comply with this is too expensive a prospect. "

Surely you realize that if your power plants are not using the technology outlined in this resolution than you are not required to follow it? Where does it say every power plant using technology not in this resolution has to make any changes?