NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Nuclear Power Safety Act

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Silvadus
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 128
Founded: Nov 27, 2009
Ex-Nation

[PASSED] Nuclear Power Safety Act

Postby Silvadus » Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:54 pm

Nuclear Power Safety Act
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
Category: Environmental | Industries Affected: Uranium Mining | Proposed by: Silvadus


The General Assembly,

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

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,

SHALL grant the NESC the responsibilities of:
I. The inspection of nuclear energy power plants for the purpose of evaluating safety protocols,
II. Determining the level of compliance of safety protocols in conjunction with standardized practices,
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,
V. Receiving and evaluating outstanding safety practices for implementation for standardization as “best practices”,

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,
II. Establish procedures and arrangements to maintain safety and stability while operating nuclear power plants,
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,
VI. Enforce regulations placed upon nuclear facilities and attempt to pass legislation to better the safety of said nuclear facilities,

Co-authored by Lestaria and Neuchies


Suggestions and constructive criticism for this rough draft are quite welcome so please post your thoughts.
Last edited by Goobergunchia on Thu Jun 21, 2012 10:10 am, edited 14 times in total.
The United Republic of Silvadus
Forenterepublikken Sølvkog
Wiki
Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 3.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.69
Foreign Policy Non-interventionist/Neo-conservative: -3.32
Cultural Liberal/Conservative: -7.92

Ordoliberal, Secular Humanist, and Pansexual
Ceannairceach wrote:If I were optimistic, I'd never be pleasantly surprised.

User avatar
Cenetra
Diplomat
 
Posts: 699
Founded: Jun 29, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Cenetra » Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:40 am

This doesn't seem to actually have any effect besides making a committee. Opposed.
The Multiversal Species Alliance wrote:What would you do if the Mane Six were suddenly teleported to your nation?
Crumlark wrote:Introduce them to the reality of mankind, their true creators. Force them to see what we had done, making thing as simple as a string of numbers like 9/11 nearly unutterable in public. Show the true horrors of man, and it's finest creation. Death. Watch with glee as they see what we have done in the past for a man we don't know even exists. Have them peer at the suffering we cause each-other to this very day, and watch them scream, scream as they run back to wherever they came from, never to return.

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18325
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:34 am

Environmental proposals don't have strengths, they have 'Industries affected'... in this case, presumably, 'Uranium Mining'.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Lestaria and Neuchies
Secretary
 
Posts: 30
Founded: Feb 02, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Lestaria and Neuchies » Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:54 am

Cenetra wrote:This doesn't seem to actually have any effect besides making a committee. Opposed.


The committee (in conjunction with the proposal) is the enforcing agent for the mandates, as well as the organization that performs the inspections.

User avatar
Lestaria and Neuchies
Secretary
 
Posts: 30
Founded: Feb 02, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Lestaria and Neuchies » Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:14 am

Bears Armed wrote:Environmental proposals don't have strengths, they have 'Industries affected'... in this case, presumably, 'Uranium Mining'.


Unless the power plants are also doing the mining, I'm not sure how this would affect the uranium mining industry. Power plants aren't necessarily the sole outcome of that industry, just one of its end products. This is solely concerned about the safe operation of said plants.

That does help out, however, in making sure the categories are correct. For the life of me, I cannot seem to think of the proper terminology for the industry of providing electric power via a nuclear reaction (if there even is one). It's practically on the tip of my tongue, but it escapes me at the moment.

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18325
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:17 am

Lestaria and Neuchies wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:Environmental proposals don't have strengths, they have 'Industries affected'... in this case, presumably, 'Uranium Mining'.


Unless the power plants are also doing the mining, I'm not sure how this would affect the uranium mining industry. Power plants aren't necessarily the sole outcome of that industry, just one of its end products. This is solely concerned about the safe operation of said plants.

That does help out, however, in making sure the categories are correct. For the life of me, I cannot seem to think of the proper terminology for the industry of providing electric power via a nuclear reaction (if there even is one). It's practically on the tip of my tongue, but it escapes me at the moment.

Unfortunately the only industries that you can specify as targets for Environmental proposals are Uranium Mining, Automobile Manufacturing, or Wood-chipping. Otherwise it has to be 'All Industries', which effectively has "strong" effects on WA members' economies...
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Lestaria and Neuchies
Secretary
 
Posts: 30
Founded: Feb 02, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Lestaria and Neuchies » Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:20 am

Bears Armed wrote:
Lestaria and Neuchies wrote:
Unless the power plants are also doing the mining, I'm not sure how this would affect the uranium mining industry. Power plants aren't necessarily the sole outcome of that industry, just one of its end products. This is solely concerned about the safe operation of said plants.

That does help out, however, in making sure the categories are correct. For the life of me, I cannot seem to think of the proper terminology for the industry of providing electric power via a nuclear reaction (if there even is one). It's practically on the tip of my tongue, but it escapes me at the moment.

Unfortunately the only industries that you can specify as targets for Environmental proposals are Uranium Mining, Automobile Manufacturing, or Wood-chipping. Otherwise it has to be 'All Industries', which effectively has "strong" effects on WA members' economies...


Ah, ok. Was unaware of that. Well, that's kinda odd, as it would seem that there are other industries that could easily be targeted by environmental proposals, but this will do for now. Thanks for the insight, Bears Armed.

User avatar
Manuresia
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: Dec 11, 2011
Ex-Nation

hehe

Postby Manuresia » Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:36 pm

I am for nuclear weapons. what do you know?

User avatar
Lestaria and Neuchies
Secretary
 
Posts: 30
Founded: Feb 02, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Lestaria and Neuchies » Thu Jan 05, 2012 4:37 pm

Manuresia wrote:I am for nuclear weapons. what do you know?


I know that this has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. That much at least. :eyebrow:

User avatar
Silvadus
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 128
Founded: Nov 27, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Silvadus » Thu Jan 05, 2012 7:54 pm

Manuresia wrote:I am for nuclear weapons. what do you know?

I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make here. This resolution deals with nuclear power, not nuclear weapons.
The United Republic of Silvadus
Forenterepublikken Sølvkog
Wiki
Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 3.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.69
Foreign Policy Non-interventionist/Neo-conservative: -3.32
Cultural Liberal/Conservative: -7.92

Ordoliberal, Secular Humanist, and Pansexual
Ceannairceach wrote:If I were optimistic, I'd never be pleasantly surprised.

User avatar
Moronist Decisions
Minister
 
Posts: 2131
Founded: Jul 05, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Moronist Decisions » Thu Jan 05, 2012 8:46 pm

You need to ensure it doesn't duplicate the Nuclear Waste Safety Act or other acts such as "Nuclear Disaster Response Act".

I would also draw your attention to the last known efforts at this legislation: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=101862

Our delegation is suitably impressed at present but will need some more time to look over this.
Note: Unless specifically specified, my comments shall be taken as those purely of Moronist Decisions and do not represent the views of the Republic/Region of Europeia.

Member of Europeia
Ideological Bulwark #255
IntSane: International Sanity for All

Author of GAR#194, GAR#198 and GAR#203.

User avatar
Lestaria and Neuchies
Secretary
 
Posts: 30
Founded: Feb 02, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Lestaria and Neuchies » Fri Jan 06, 2012 2:54 am

Moronist Decisions wrote:You need to ensure it doesn't duplicate the Nuclear Waste Safety Act or other acts such as "Nuclear Disaster Response Act".

I would also draw your attention to the last known efforts at this legislation: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=101862

Our delegation is suitably impressed at present but will need some more time to look over this.


Thanks for the heads up. After looking over both past resolutions and the topic you posted, I'm seeing that the focus was more on responding to disasters (and how to do so), rather than the tone we're attempting to go after, which is to prevent them in the first place (as much as possible, at least). The Nuclear Disaster Response Act seemed to only mention preventative safety as an afterthought almost. At least that's what I saw there.

Waste management was also something that was the core focus of the Nuclear Waste Safety Act, which is why it wasn't breached in our proposal (indeed, to prevent duplication). I do like the NWSA, but its focus was on waste management, not the safe operation of the plant itself. That's what our proposal is attempting to do.

User avatar
Damanucus
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1699
Founded: Dec 10, 2006
Democratic Socialists

Postby Damanucus » Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:10 am

Okay, I'm going to disect this act a little.


Silvadus wrote:
Nuclear Power Safety Act
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
Category: Environmental | Industries Affected: Uranium Mining | Proposed by: Silvadus


The General Assembly,

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

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.

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


Am I to guess these inspections will not be simply random visits? They will also inspect sites during times of disaster?

Silvadus wrote:
II. Determining the level of compliance of safety protocols in conjunction with standardized practices.
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.



Following on from the first point, will they also be inspecting current practices, and modifying their standards in light of real risks exposed from obeying the standards?

Silvadus wrote:
V. Receiving and evaluating outstanding safety practices for implementation for standardization as “best practices”.

MANDATES the following:
I. Organizations handling radioactive material for the purpose of nuclear power take prime responsibility for risks caused by exposure to radiation.
II. Organizations operating nuclear power plants must establish procedures and arrangements to maintain safety and stability.
III. Organizations handling radioactive material must have safety measures in place to prevent or have arrangements to deal with exposure to radiation.
IV. Organizations responsible for the construction of nuclear power plants follow adequate building designs for facilities.
V. Governments establish proper regulations for facilities and activities dealing with the handling of radioactive materials for the purpose of generating power.



Based on what? What will the regulations be based upon? This statement worries more than anything, because it could cause a conflict in standards: one nation could have standards that are way lower than those outlined by the NESC.

Silvadus wrote:
VI. Governments enforce regulations placed upon nuclear facilities and attempt to pass legislation to better the safety of said nuclear facilities.


See the previous comment.

Silvadus wrote:

Co-authored by Lestaria and Neuchies


Suggestions and constructive criticism for this rough draft are quite welcome so please post your thoughts.


I kind of like the proposal, most things have been thought about, and while I'll support it, that last statement still worries me.
Last edited by Damanucus on Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mizialand
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1234
Founded: Apr 17, 2011
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Mizialand » Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:21 am

I think your revised draft is a good one. Keep up the good work! :)
╔══════════════════════════════════ ೋღ☃ღೋ═════════════════════════════════╗
Mizialand Embassy Programmel Our Factbookl MiziaNews.mz
╚══════════════════════════════════ ೋღ☃ღೋ═════════════════════════════════╝

User avatar
Libraria and Ausitoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7099
Founded: May 30, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Libraria and Ausitoria » Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:55 am

We are very much in favour of this resolution. We need to stop any problems before they happen. The problem is trying to enforce good standards, and that would get extremely technical and almost immediately go beyond the word limit of these resolutions. We will think on it.

(OOC: at a talk by Roger Cashmore, he said this was needed, and the arguments are very convincing, so hopefully this can be made to work.)
The Aestorian Commonwealth - Pax Prosperitas - Gloria in Maere - (Factbook)

Disclaimer: Notwithstanding any mention of their nations, Ausitoria and its canon does not exist nor impact the canon of many IFC & SACTO & closed-region nations; and it is harassment to presume it does. However in accordance with my open-door policy the converse does not apply: they still impact Ausitoria's canon.
○ Commonwealth Capital (Bank) ○ ○ Commonwealth Connect (Bank Treaty) ○ ○ SeaScape (Shipping & Energy) ○
(██████████████████████████████║║◙█[Θ]█]◙◙◙◙◙[█]

User avatar
Favinnystan
Envoy
 
Posts: 320
Founded: Jan 07, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Favinnystan » Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:39 am

Silvadus wrote:
Manuresia wrote:I am for nuclear weapons. what do you know?

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
Cricket rocks!

Imran khan is going to win Pakistani election!
[DEFCON]DEFCON
5 Peace
4 Terrorist attack
3 civil war
2 total war
1 almost dead
[/DEFCON]

User avatar
Syrkania
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 162
Founded: Jan 06, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Syrkania » Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:44 am

Favinnystan wrote:
Silvadus wrote: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

Well, for starters, should a nuclear power plant go into meltdown, it may very well have direct effect upon other nations (including those who do not use nuclear power at all). As such, this can and should be considered an international issue.

Harim Kelsis,
WA Special Envoy for Syrkania
Wandering around here since 13 January 2004

User avatar
Darcjjew
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 150
Founded: Jan 11, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Darcjjew » Sat Jan 14, 2012 5:29 am

Interesting Proposal. But I haven't quite decided just yet. There are some things you might want to clarify though, e.g., how will the inspections on the power plants be carried out? I'll keep an eye on this proposal though. ;)
Last edited by Darcjjew on Sat Jan 14, 2012 5:32 am, edited 2 times in total.
The Armed Union of Darcjjew

Semper Excelcis

User avatar
Silvadus
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 128
Founded: Nov 27, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Silvadus » Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:53 pm

Damanucus wrote:Okay, I'm going to disect this act a little.

Am I to guess these inspections will not be simply random visits? They will also inspect sites during times of disaster?

Inspections will most likely be held twice a year unless negotiated otherwise with individual states. They will inspect facilities during and after disasters to determine the best way to deal with the disaster or aftermath of such.
Following on from the first point, will they also be inspecting current practices, and modifying their standards in light of real risks exposed from obeying the standards?

Yes, as time goes on the NESC will change their standards accordingly to what they have experienced and what they have determined to be the best way to deal with current nuclear power plants.
Based on what? What will the regulations be based upon? This statement worries more than anything, because it could cause a conflict in standards: one nation could have standards that are way lower than those outlined by the NESC.

Standards based on what the NESC determines are the minimal amount of safety protocols which can protect people and the environment will still maintaining an efficient and sustainable nuclear power plant.
I kind of like the proposal, most things have been thought about, and while I'll support it, that last statement still worries me.

I hope this has helped, if not please ask more questions.
The United Republic of Silvadus
Forenterepublikken Sølvkog
Wiki
Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 3.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.69
Foreign Policy Non-interventionist/Neo-conservative: -3.32
Cultural Liberal/Conservative: -7.92

Ordoliberal, Secular Humanist, and Pansexual
Ceannairceach wrote:If I were optimistic, I'd never be pleasantly surprised.

User avatar
Darcjjew
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 150
Founded: Jan 11, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Darcjjew » Sun Jan 15, 2012 2:01 am

The Armed Republic of Darcjjew appoves this proposal.


-John N. Lim, Minister of Foreign Affairs
The Armed Union of Darcjjew

Semper Excelcis

User avatar
Favinnystan
Envoy
 
Posts: 320
Founded: Jan 07, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Favinnystan » Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:03 am

The Dominion Of Favinnystan do not accept this proposal

Signed

Gary Salco

Ambassoder to WA
Cricket rocks!

Imran khan is going to win Pakistani election!
[DEFCON]DEFCON
5 Peace
4 Terrorist attack
3 civil war
2 total war
1 almost dead
[/DEFCON]

User avatar
Damanucus
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1699
Founded: Dec 10, 2006
Democratic Socialists

Postby Damanucus » Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:36 am

Thank you for your responses. As I have seen the proposal has been submitted unedited, I am going to withhold my approval this time, as I now feel that these responses should actually be included, and not simply left to the voters to ask/translate. If this is rejected again, can I suggest these edits be made before resubmission.

Horgen Dush
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18325
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Sun Jan 15, 2012 9:18 am

OOC: This covers reactors aboard nuclear-powered warships, as well as civilian-controlled reactors, yes?
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Glenn
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 160
Founded: Dec 05, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Glenn » Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:09 am

I just don't see why this is necessary. This act makes it sound like countries tend to be reckless and just sit around in their own radioactive filth. Unless I am convinced that this act could prevent something that could be of international consequences, I will remain opposed. Otherwise it should be up to states to decide how to regulate this.
Dr. Jessica Blight,
WA Ambassador for the Free Land of Glenn
Glenn's NS Tracker
"Na bean don chat gun lamhainn"

Protect, Free, Restore: UDL

User avatar
Maklohi Vai
Minister
 
Posts: 2954
Founded: Jan 07, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Maklohi Vai » Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:09 pm

Although the necessity of this act may not appear to some, it is clear that measures regarding nuclear weapons are quite serious and that this measure is clearly in favor of protecting the members of the WA. Approved, and strongly recommended that you do the same.
"For the glory of our people, we govern our nation freely. For the glory of Polynesia, we help and strengthen our friends. For the glory of the earth, we do not destroy what it has bestowed upon us."
Demonym: Vaian
-Kamanakai Oa'a Pani, first president of Maklohi Vai
-6.13/-8.51 - as of 7/18
Hosted: MVBT 1; WBC 27; Friendly Cups 7, 9; (co-) NSCAA 5
Former President, WBC; WBC Councillor
Senator Giandomenico Abruzzi, Workers Party of Galatea
Administrator
Former:
Head Administrator
Beto Goncalves, Chair, CTA
Abraham Kamassi, Chair, Labour Party of Elizia
President of Calaverde Eduardo Bustamante; Leader, LDP
President of Baltonia Dovydas Kanarigis; Leader, LDP
President of Aurentina Wulukuno Porunalakai; Leader, Progress Coa.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads