Draft- The Nuclear Energy Regulatory Act

[Unibot]

Zhildigo, the curious, plucky caveman that he was, had snuck into 'his' own office after leaving his designated cushion under the stairs, which he usually curled up on like a dog. After finishing his pint at the Stranger's Bar - Kuno, the unofficial unibotian ambassador walked into the office, shaking his head at his nomadic boss who looked like a kid caught stealing from a cookie jar.

"Okay, what did yeh "like" find?" Kuno said, attempting to be gentle.

Zhildigo, with his head lower that his sholders as he whimpered like a dog, handed a file over to Kuno.

Apparently Zhildigo's predecessor, the capitalist, drug abusing, suicidal, theocratic, eccentric billionaire playboy - Eduard Heir, had while 'experimenting' in activist politics written a strange proposal indeed... one Kuno had never heard of..... he read the proposal slowly out loud....


THE NUCLEAR ENERGY REGULATORY ACT
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Areas of Effect: All Business
Proposed by: Stash Kroh

The World Assembly

ACKNOWLEDGES nuclear energy is a safe and economically-sound method for energy production if it is responsive to regulation, therefore conducted with a high level of accountability.

AWARE that nuclear power production produces high level radioactive waste in considerable proportions.

FEARING that without proper disposal of this waste, and appropriate regulation of safety procedures and security measures within nuclear power plants they may pose a serious risk to international health and the wellbeing of the neighboring and harboring ecosystems.

HEREBY establishes the World Assembly Nuclear Energy Control Board, (NECB).

DEMANDS that the NECB shall have the ability to inspect WA member state's nuclear energy plants and waste disposal sights with the aim of insuring best practices are upheld and regulations adhered to.

INSISTS the NECB will work with member states to devise the highest standards of technical and environmental excellence and with these set regulations for radioactive waste storage, discharged water temperature, as well as other technical specifications and site specific security measures

DECLARES the NECB shall investigate complaints from any quarter it believes to be reliable if it feels that its regulations are contravened by conditions within any power plant of a w.a. member state.

STATES the NECB does have the authority in dire situations to shut down any power plant whose's management show a blatant disregard and ignorance for the NECB's regulations, while fully aware their establishments do not meet the NECB's safety standards.

FURTHER STATES that the NECB is charged with insuring that all energy providers within w.a. member states are properly informed and conversant with the regulations it is charged with enforcing.

___________________________________________________

[Absolvability]

I'm going to think on this some more, but I have to say, I really like the looks of it.

[Philimbesi]

A good start honored ambassador... yet.

DEMANDS that the NECB shall have the ability to inspect WA member state's nuclear energy plants and waste disposal sights with the aim of insuring best practices are upheld and regulations adhered to.

While the USoP does truly welcome the WA Gnomes any time and anywhere, we feel it would be better if there was some warning of their arrival. Or at least a limit to the number of surprise inspections. We have noticed with our own NRC that too many inspections can impact the efficiency of the plants.

Other than that, and honestly we would be agreeable to this not changing as well, this seems pretty solid from the USoP's view.

Nigel S Youlkin
Ambassador

[Absolvability]

Well... okay, I think I have one concern also:

STATES the NECB does have the authority in dire situations to shut down any power plant whose's management show a blatant disregard and ignorance for the NECB's regulations, while fully aware their establishments do not meet the NECB's safety standards.

For starters, the Rogue Nation of Absolvability has legislation pending as we speak that will bring our nuclear power plants into an advanced modern and eco-friendly era, specifically where waste disposal is concerned.

However, I think letting the NECB step in to shut down a nuclear power plant in any specific country is extreme. It might even be dangerous. We rely on nuclear power for a lot... at least in my nation. Lets not shut down a city.

Perhaps a sufficient punishment, instead, might be to render all of the power plant's transactions non-profit until compliance is reached by NECB standards?

[Bears Armed]

However, I think letting the NECB step in to shut down a nuclear power plant in any specific country is extreme. It might even be dangerous. We rely on nuclear power for a lot... at least in my nation. Lets not shut down a city.

Perhaps a sufficient punishment, instead, might be to render all of the power plant's transactions non-profit until compliance is reached by NECB standards?

OOC: But what if it's already being run on a "non-profit" basis, by (for the most obvious example) a government agency?

[Philimbesi]

Perhaps a sufficient punishment, instead, might be to render all of the power plant's transactions non-profit until compliance is reached by NECB standards?

Plus not taking profits from all plants won't make the plant in question safer. I would hope that that NECB works with the local governments nuclear commission to decide on closure and not just have a gnome bound up on the control panel and hit the kill switch, but if they see fit shutting it down without isn't out of the question.

[Absolvability]

OOC: But what if it's already being run on a "non-profit" basis, by (for the most obvious example) a government agency?

OOC: Well, since we're OOC, basically I figure a government agency will be victim of mandatory compliance to this resolution if it passes. But, hypothetically speaking... then maybe, for the duration of the breach, a government operated power plant already operating not-for-profit could now recieve no funds in return for services renderred at all. Which is the logical next step down the described ladder, I think. There's a proportionately incremental difference between a profitable company running non-profit and a non-profit company running for deficit, I think.

[Unibot]

While the USoP does truly welcome the WA Gnomes any time and anywhere, we feel it would be better if there was some warning of their arrival. Or at least a limit to the number of surprise inspections. We have noticed with our own NRC that too many inspections can impact the efficiency of the plants.

I don't see the "like" inspections as intrusive so much as encourging better industrial practices (in other words they'll be on their best behavior). In which "like" case, I don't mind them coming everyday.

You see the problem with associating "like" a span of time between these random inspection is, lets say the inspection is to be annual, however the "like" inspection is randomly picked as one day in the year. Once the inspection happens, that will leave all of the time up to the end of the year after the inspection (and the beginning of a new one) as invalid for inspection and therefore such a void of deterrence could be "like" used to corrupt the industrial officials.

However, I think letting the NECB step in to shut down a nuclear power plant in any specific country is extreme. It might even be dangerous. We rely on nuclear power for a lot... at least in my nation. Lets not shut down a city.

Perhaps a sufficient punishment, instead, might be to render all of the power plant's transactions non-profit until compliance is reached by NECB standards?

The only compromise I'd be offering at this moment, is to "like" insert a clause about WA hydro welfare given to the ex-customers of the nuclear plant - with the power used being taxed and payed for by the National Governments.

Therefore if the nuclear plants are "like" forced to close, the people won't be directly effected, but the governments will be forced to act or see their adminstration taxed. However then the right to electricity would have to be "like" secured, or else governments would just ban hydro-outlets for domestic usage and pay a much smaller tax.

Does anyone else have "like" any ideas?

[Philimbesi]

I don't see the "like" inspections as intrusive so much as encourging better industrial practices (in other words they'll be on their best behavior). In which "like" case, I don't mind them coming everyday.

You see the problem with associating "like" a span of time between these random inspection is, lets say the inspection is to be annual, however the "like" inspection is randomly picked as one day in the year. Once the inspection happens, that will leave all of the time up to the end of the year after the inspection (and the beginning of a new one) as invalid for inspection and therefore such a void of deterrence could be "like" used to corrupt the industrial officials.

Nigel rolled his eyes, I think I like liked the caveman better he thought.

Ambassador, you don't need to explain the purpose of random testing of nuclear facilities, it's so easy a caveman could understand it. How about 3 to 5 random inspections per year?

[Unibot]

Ambassador, you don't need to explain the purpose of random testing of nuclear facilities, it's so easy a caveman could understand it. How about 3 to 5 random inspections per year?

Kuno scratched his head, "oh, "like" yeah, that would work... "like" why didn't I think of that?"


OOC:Wow its getting late.... has my spelling degenerated too?
As well, I'm going to be away too - so keep posting but I'll be two days to reply.

[Quintessence of Dust]

With all due respect, even if we agreed 100% with the content of this proposal - which we do not - we would not believe it anywhere close to ready for submission. There are, well I gave up counting so let's just go with "myriad", spelling and grammatical errors and ambiguities. Given the length of the present proposal queue, there seems no justification for rushed submission. And, before I begin pointing to specific items, I want to make the general point that legislation does not have to be, and arguably should not be, worded in complex fashion in order to be a worthy addition to the WA's books. If you can write a sentence in brief, consise, clear English, then there is no need to introduce grammatical loop-the-loops: and doing so only makes it more likely the proposal will be subject to wilful misintepretation.

1. ACKNOWLEDGES nuclear energy is a safe and 2. economically-sound method for energy production 3. if it is responsive to regulation, 4. therefore conducted with a high level of accountability.

AWARE that nuclear power production produces high level radioactive waste 5. in considerable proportions.

FEARING that without proper disposal of this waste, and appropriate regulation of safety procedures and 6. security measures within nuclear 7. power plants they may pose a serious risk to international health and the 8. wellbeing of 9. the neighboring and harboring ecosystems.

HEREBY establishes the World Assembly Nuclear Energy Control Board10. , (NECB).

11. DEMANDS that the 12. NECB shall have the ability to inspect WA member 13. state's nuclear energy plants and waste disposal 14. sights with the aim of 15. insuring best practices are upheld and 16. regulations adhered to.

17. INSISTS the NECB will work with member states to devise the highest standards of technical and environmental excellence and with these 18. set regulations for radioactive waste storage, discharged water temperature, as well as other technical specifications and site specific security measures

DECLARES the NECB shall investigate complaints 19. from any quarter it believes to be reliable if it 20. feels that its regulations 21. are contravened by conditions within any power plant of a 22. w.a. member state.

STATES the NECB 23. does have the authority in 24. dire situations to shut down any power plant 25. whose's 26. management show a 27. blatant disregard and ignorance for the NECB's regulations, 28. while fully aware their establishments do not meet the NECB's safety standards.

29. FURTHER STATES that the NECB is charged with 30. insuring that 31. all energy providers within 32. w.a. member states are properly 33. informed and conversant with the regulations it is charged with enforcing.

1. It's an introductory verb, so should be written in the present participle to be consistent with a) other laws and b) the rest of your own introductory section. Change to "ACKNOWLEDGING".
2. Should not by hyphenated. "economically" describes "sound": they're two separate adjectives.
3. Aside from questioning the use of the word "responsive", this is the first of many admittedly subjective complaints that it simply seems awkward. This is because the purpose of this clause, presumably, is to justify your proposal's regulation. Yet at this stage, you sound rather grudging about the whole thing: like you're forced to admit regulation might be necessary. It would be better, in my view, to change the tone of the clause to one of positive affirmation: "nuclear plants, when subject to appropriate and regulation, can be a clean, safe and efficient source of energy". That formulation is not perfect, or close to, but it does also avoid the double use of the word "energy" (would you say "my ham sandwich is a tasty sandwich"?)
4. This is the first of a perhaps less constructive set of criticisms of the form: ...what? This makes no sense in English, and if English is not your first language I assure you (as I believe I did your predecessor in the past) that there are those willing to help polish up the language. I genuinely cannot offer any suggestions on this clause, however, as I do not understand what it means. What is being "conducted"?
5. I question this. For many nations, I would assume the main source of HLW would be from nuclear reprocessing in defence industries. My point being, the word "proportion" necessarily implies a comparison. In proportion to what? If the answer is "other nuclear activities", then no, not really.
6. Your proposal largely doesn't address security measures (one line later on, and that's it). Furthermore, that's a very big topic, and is largely unrelated to the issue of safety. I would suggest concentrating solely on the latter: Love and esterel's "Nuclear Responsibility" proposal died a death at vote in the old UN for similar reasons.
7. Missing comma to close the subordinate clause. This then sets up a dangling modifier, though. I also dislike the verb "FEARING" in international law, but this may just be me. I would suggest rephrasing the entire clause to "concerned by the risk blah if blah is not and without blah" or similar.
8. Should be "well-being".
9. Very awkward. The ecosystems of what - of the power plant? And I'd point out a full-blown nuclear accident wouldn't be confined to "neighbouring" ecosystems, nor to "ecosystems" in general.
10. Extraneous comma.
11. This is a WA proposal: you don't need to demand something from yourself. And doing so seems...squawkish. Would be better rewritten to "Charges the NECB with..." or similar.
12. Very awkward. No need to include "shall", which introduces an unnecessary ambiguity (has now? or shall have in the future?).
13. Plural, should be "states'".
14. I'm sorry, but: The Quodite Ambassador rises, points, and laughs.
15. Should be "ensuring". Please note: this is not Quintessential English snobbery, but an important distinction as the NECB is decidedly not in the business of insurance.
16. Should probably be "its regulations" or "international regulations" or "necessary regulations": it needs a qualifier, or else it seems like NECB is ensuring every regulation is upheld - even those it's not responsible for.
17. Again, this is just a matter of tone. But I would suggest you insist your child take a bath; when it comes to international law, it's better to require or enjoin.
18. I have three objections here, one major, one minor, one piddling. The major one is that the interesting part of this proposal is completely washed over in half a clause! Even if you don't want to go into details, you could at least supply more information here, given you have plenty of character count space left over. The minor one is that the process is unclear: is the NECB going to be coming with a set of rules? Or giving each nation a different set of rules? In general, I'd suggest it's better to bite the bullet and make the WA committee fairly direct in its approach. And, you forgot closing punctuation. I'll take this opportunity to suggest changing the closing full stops to commas in the introductory section, semi-colons in the operative section, though that's just personal preference. Either way, your clauses are not individual sentences.
19. Awkward and vague. I would strongly commend wording of the form "...where there exists probable cause to investigate..."
20. Feelings are for poems and songs and DeadJournal entries. This is a political Assembly where we write laws. If you want to discuss your feelings, I'd suggest the Bar: Murray The Evil Skull is a pretty good listener. Using the language I suggested in the previous bullet would remove this problem.
21. No need to use the passive.
22. Should be "WA".
23. ...what? No one was saying it didn't have this! Your whole proposal reads like a reaction piece: it's not. It's setting out an agenda. Use strong, clear language: "State the NECB has the authority to...", or even better "Grants the NECB the authority to...".
24. Vague. You need to include a mechanism for determining what constitutes such a situation.
25. "whose" is already possessive.
26. Why should it be limited to management? What about the workers?
27. I would argue that when it comes to the possibility of nuclear accident, even "non-blatant disregard" is pretty troublesome. Why do they need to be "blatant" to be of concern? See also my next bullet.
28. You're contradicting yourself in dangerous fashion. Earlier you required they be "ignorant" of the NECB's standards, now you require they know themselves to be in violation of them?
29. Again, awkward and defensive. "Charges the NECB with" will suffice.
30. "ensuring"
31. Even those that don't use nuclear energy?
32. "WA"
33. "informed of"

Completely separate to the above, I remain firmly opposed to the idea of foreign inspectors being permitted access to our civilian and military power facilities, and would prefer almost any other solution, even if it requires the submission of technical data to the NECB.

-- Dr Joyce Merrywether
WA Ambassador

[Burning Sappho]

I am sure the ambassador, being (necessarily) much more aware of the implications of his draft than I am, has considered the Standing Orders of the Assembly, to wit:

Committees are additions to Proposals; they shouldn't be all the Proposal does.

It seems to me that the preparatory clauses establish an argument for the committee, the active one establishes the committee and the subsequent ones establish how the committee shall act -- that is, they do nothing but expand on details of the committee.

It may be that this rule is usually read as meaning, "Don't just set up a committee; say what it does as well". If this is the case, I apologise for wasting the WA's time; unfortunately, in the area of WA conduct I do not have a mentor, whereas in matters concerning naval activity I have many, particularly my immediate superior, Captain Anna Bligh, who, though of humble origins, has nevertheless risen, by dint of unparalleled intelligence, pertinacity and outstanding tactical competence, to her present exalted rank.

On that note, I am minded of one of Captain Bligh's adages for governing those who had previously lived without the benefits of the just, generous and democratic rule of our own dear Queen. Captain Bligh has frequently bade me, "Don't let them think they have a choice. They don't have a choice. They don't have The Navy."

Thus, I would echo Dr Merrywether's suggestion regarding the elimination of the words "demand" and "insist".

Metaphorically, despite its well-established and principled determination not to employ any form of force, the WA "has The Navy".

-- Felicity Cholmondeley-Featherstonehaugh, Lt, on assignment from the Sirius.