[PASSED] Uranium Mining Standards Act

[Abacathea]

Quite happy with the current draft. Consider it one of my better pieces. But still open to feedback!

[Riasy]

iii: Further requires all nations to conduct a survey on surrounding flora and fauna at potential mine sites from the passage of this act and to ensure that the construction and resultant operation of the mine will not endanger or extinguish any species in the general vicinity.

I don’t understand the purpose of the underlined words. But everything else sounds good. Riasy will vote FOR this Act if and when it will reach the vote.

Iljas Saparitti, Ambassador.

[Abacathea]

iii: Further requires all nations to conduct a survey on surrounding flora and fauna at potential mine sites from the passage of this act and to ensure that the construction and resultant operation of the mine will not endanger or extinguish any species in the general vicinity.

I don’t understand the purpose of the underlined words. But everything else sounds good. Riasy will vote FOR this Act if and when it will reach the vote.

Iljas Saparitti, Ambassador.

Hmm, you're right, it does seem out of place. Consider it struck out.

[Gibbl]

After much deliberation it was decided that this Act in it's current form is very much acceptable to myself and the councils, and therefore, shall receive the support of Gibbl if it should reach a vote.

Signed:
Jeron Smith, Chancellor of The Federation of Gibbl

[Potted Plants United]

A large potted plant in a big plantpot with wheels suddenly comes to life, revealing a large leaf curled up to form a cone, from which a somewhat hissing voice can be heard:

"We have stumbled upon a detail that we are fairly certain is not a large problem for most nations, but might be for those that buy our services in the future. How do you define "mining" for the purposes of this proposal? If it is simply "extracting uranium from the soil", then our future services would be covered, as we are developing a type of plant that would help clean up radioactive waste after a nuclear incident, or a spill at a larger mining site. But if you strictly define it as extracting "virgin" uranium, which has not been handled by sapients or their machinery previously, then we are uncertain if our enricher plants would count for the purposes of your proposal."

[Abacathea]

A large potted plant in a big plantpot with wheels suddenly comes to life, revealing a large leaf curled up to form a cone, from which a somewhat hissing voice can be heard:

"We have stumbled upon a detail that we are fairly certain is not a large problem for most nations, but might be for those that buy our services in the future. How do you define "mining" for the purposes of this proposal? If it is simply "extracting uranium from the soil", then our future services would be covered, as we are developing a type of plant that would help clean up radioactive waste after a nuclear incident, or a spill at a larger mining site. But if you strictly define it as extracting "virgin" uranium, which has not been handled by sapients or their machinery previously, then we are uncertain if our enricher plants would count for the purposes of your proposal."

Dearest Delegate from the... humble... nation of PPU,

We send this letter as we are unable to address you in person, for...unspecified reasons.

We at this time are slow to define the term uranium mining. We are operating under the good faith notion that nations will understand what we are hoping to achieve here without getting into defining the act itself. We wish to be to the point rather than overly concise as this has led in the past to openings for repeal.

Take for example the REA we recently passed, in it's previous form, delegates complained about x and repealed it. In it's current form, we changed x to suit, and now new delegates have taken issue with it, and are using it as grounds for repeal. Resultantly we are now operating on the NAPAesq front of, it's straight to the point, no muddling about, and we expect you should understand what we're getting at.

Furthermore, we have noticed that your race as a whole seems uniquely adapt at containing itself outside of the remit of most WA laws and drafts. Your species appears to be well adapted to cope with any and all legislation and as a rule seems to murky the waters on drafts that attempt to cater for PPU's uniqueness. Resultantly we anticipate that this legislation will have little requirement or effect in your nation as it seems well capable of dealing with issues that the WA as a larger body cannot.

All the best,

Jon Chombers.

[Araraukar]

*snip*

OOC: Your delegates still creeped out by the plants?

"Freaking plants making things awkward for everyone involved... eating one of my aides and stealing another one to walk one of them around into places they shouldn't be allowed..."
- Janis Leverett

[Abacathea]

*snip*

OOC: Your delegates still creeped out by the plants?

You have to ask? Besides, the PPU can often throw up inventive arguments to counter any proposal when it comes to their uniqueness, I'm making sure I close that door swiftly. But yes, they creep the shit out of me

[Araraukar]

You have to ask? Besides, the PPU can often throw up inventive arguments to counter any proposal when it comes to their uniqueness, I'm making sure I close that door swiftly. But yes, they creep the shit out of me

Hehe, fair enough, though I also considered it a valid question if this pertains only on "virgin" uranium, or any sort of uranium recovery.

OOC: There has been this uranium mine called Talvivaara in the news for a year or so, for failing to adhere to their environmental restrictions and ending up letting uranium into rivers and whatnot, hence the whole idea of "what if someone else recovered what they've leaked into the environment - would that be called uranium mining or cleaning up pollution?"

[Abacathea]

You have to ask? Besides, the PPU can often throw up inventive arguments to counter any proposal when it comes to their uniqueness, I'm making sure I close that door swiftly. But yes, they creep the shit out of me

Hehe, fair enough, though I also considered it a valid question if this pertains only on "virgin" uranium, or any sort of uranium recovery.

OOC: There has been this uranium mine called Talvivaara in the news for a year or so, for failing to adhere to their environmental restrictions and ending up letting uranium into rivers and whatnot, hence the whole idea of "what if someone else recovered what they've leaked into the environment - would that be called uranium mining or cleaning up pollution?"

OOC: I would personally consider that neither, usually by virtue of the fact that I though the definition of mining involved the actual extraction of the material from the earth itself, something I will look into. In the instance you've described I would imagine it would be uranium acquisition or salvage at a push, depending on the intent of the acquiring party though you could make a viable case for cleaning up pollution though.

[Abacathea]

If no further feedback will look to test the waters with this in the coming few days.

[Kosamia]

Kosamia only acquires its uranium from ecologically irresponsible sources.

[Araraukar]

Kosamia only acquires its uranium from ecologically irresponsible sources.

OOC: You'll want to contact Talvivaara then.

[Abacathea]

Submitting tonight,

[Discoveria]

OOC: Much as I am generally well-disposed to your proposals, I don't think this one is ready for submission at all.

Mining Standards Act
Category: Environmental | Area: Uranium Mining

The World Assembly, noting its constant strives towards the betterment of the universe as a whole, through the tireless work it does as a legislative body and overall commendable institution; Pure fluff. At least make it specific to your goal of environmental protection.

Observing that the uranium mining industry plays a pivotal role in the economies of many member nations;

Concerned that whilst this industry is indeed of great importance to many member nations, it remains, in part, highly unregulated in terms of environmental protection despite the sheer impact it makes on the environment itself. Not necessarily true, but fair enough.

Absolute in ensuring the least possible impact on the services this industry provides and the revenue it generates; I'm not sure the grammar of this sentence holds up. Why not "HOPING to ensure..."?

However refusing to allow this to take precedent over the often severe impact made on the landscape and environment;

The preamble states the problem but doesn't justify it as an international one. I would try to put in something about how radioactive pollutants can travel via wind and waterways beyond the nation of origin, assuming of course that that is actually true for uranium mining.

Hereby;

i: Mandates that all nations allowing uranium mining within its borders conduct an audit of each operational mine to ensure that basic radiation precautions are in place and being utilized. Needs the edit suggested by Alqania. Also, this is a one-off mandate, which is a bad idea. (Similar to your one-off emission reduction mandate in a previous drafting thread.) You could rewrite this to require regular audits or inspections.

ii: Charges all national governments with assessing operational mines for any issues relating to waste product disposal, radiation containment and structural integrity. I would prefer something like "DECLARES that member-states' governments shall be responsible for..."

iii: Further requires all nations to conduct a survey on surrounding flora and fauna at potential mine sites and to ensure that the construction and resultant operation of the mine will not endanger or extinguish any species in the general vicinity. But existing mines aren't subject to this requirement...?

iv: Instructs nations who discover flora or fauna indigenous solely to the potential mine site to make documented efforts to relocate either the mine, or the relevant species to ensure that the species suffer as little impact as possible. Possible loophole in that nations could intentionally "relocate the species" in such a traumatic way that it becomes extinct. If the species only lives in that one area, I think the nation should be compelled to block mining activities at that site unless the species can be introduced to another habitat or bred in captivity.

v: Charges all national governments with assessing the areas directly around mining operations currently in progress and annually thereafter on all active mines, to ensure that no significant contamination of water supplies or soil has occurred and take all possible measures to treat and prevent the further spread of contamination if such is discovered.

vi: Makes provision for nations to apply to the Nuclear Testing Oversight Agency (NTOA) for an assessment of their facilities if they do not feel they have the essential skills to conduct the required audits. I get that you want to be efficient with committees, but a committee called the Nuclear Testing Oversight Agency sounds like the wrong committee to oversee uranium mining.

vii: Directs the Nuclear Testing Oversight Agency (NTOA) to conduct these tests on behalf of nations and to make governmental recommendations based off their findings. Have you thought about whether nations will be compelled to implement those recommendations?

viii: Makes provision for nations to apply to the WA general fund on the provision that they can show verified needs for assistance in order to conform to recommendations made by the Nuclear Testing Oversight Agency (NTOA) or their own self audits. WA General Fund.

ix: Empowers the General Accounting Office (GAO) to conduct any and all essential financial checks on a nation before deciding on the approval of funds and to confer with the Nuclear Testing Oversight Agency (NTOA) to determine exactly what actions will be required on a case by case basis by nations applying under this act. The GAO doesn't sound like the right committee to "determine what actions will be required" for compliance.

[Abacathea]

Will pull for further consideration.

Thank you discoveria

[Abacathea]

OOC: As always, your feedback is always greatly appreciated and taken to heart.

OOC: Much as I am generally well-disposed to your proposals, I don't think this one is ready for submission at all.

Mining Standards Act
Category: Environmental | Area: Uranium Mining

The World Assembly, noting its constant strives towards the betterment of the universe as a whole, through the tireless work it does as a legislative body and overall commendable institution; Pure fluff. At least make it specific to your goal of environmental protection.

Observing that the uranium mining industry plays a pivotal role in the economies of many member nations;

Concerned that whilst this industry is indeed of great importance to many member nations, it remains, in part, highly unregulated in terms of environmental protection despite the sheer impact it makes on the environment itself. Not necessarily true, but fair enough.

A few edits to this general section, should address some issues raised.

Absolute in ensuring the least possible impact on the services this industry provides and the revenue it generates; I'm not sure the grammar of this sentence holds up. Why not "HOPING to ensure..."?

Edited/

However refusing to allow this to take precedent over the often severe impact made on the landscape and environment;

The preamble states the problem but doesn't justify it as an international one. I would try to put in something about how radioactive pollutants can travel via wind and waterways beyond the nation of origin, assuming of course that that is actually true for uranium mining.

I've tidied this entire section up significantly, I realize the justification is still missing, but I'm hoping really that it speaks for itself in that sense.

Hereby;

i: Mandates that all nations allowing uranium mining within its borders conduct an audit of each operational mine to ensure that basic radiation precautions are in place and being utilized. Needs the edit suggested by Alqania. Also, this is a one-off mandate, which is a bad idea. (Similar to your one-off emission reduction mandate in a previous drafting thread.) You could rewrite this to require regular audits or inspections.

Addressed

ii: Charges all national governments with assessing operational mines for any issues relating to waste product disposal, radiation containment and structural integrity. I would prefer something like "DECLARES that member-states' governments shall be responsible for..."

Compromised

iii: Further requires all nations to conduct a survey on surrounding flora and fauna at potential mine sites and to ensure that the construction and resultant operation of the mine will not endanger or extinguish any species in the general vicinity. But existing mines aren't subject to this requirement...?

Addressed

iv: Instructs nations who discover flora or fauna indigenous solely to the potential mine site to make documented efforts to relocate either the mine, or the relevant species to ensure that the species suffer as little impact as possible. Possible loophole in that nations could intentionally "relocate the species" in such a traumatic way that it becomes extinct. If the species only lives in that one area, I think the nation should be compelled to block mining activities at that site unless the species can be introduced to another habitat or bred in captivity.

This one was tricky, but I think I found something that might work.

vi: Makes provision for nations to apply to the Nuclear Testing Oversight Agency (NTOA) for an assessment of their facilities if they do not feel they have the essential skills to conduct the required audits. I get that you want to be efficient with committees, but a committee called the Nuclear Testing Oversight Agency sounds like the wrong committee to oversee uranium mining.

Agreed, rectified.

vii: Directs the Nuclear Testing Oversight Agency (NTOA) to conduct these tests on behalf of nations and to make governmental recommendations based off their findings. Have you thought about whether nations will be compelled to implement those recommendations?

Also addressed.

viii: Makes provision for nations to apply to the WA general fund on the provision that they can show verified needs for assistance in order to conform to recommendations made by the Nuclear Testing Oversight Agency (NTOA) or their own self audits. WA General Fund.

Fixed

ix: Empowers the General Accounting Office (GAO) to conduct any and all essential financial checks on a nation before deciding on the approval of funds and to confer with the Nuclear Testing Oversight Agency (NTOA) to determine exactly what actions will be required on a case by case basis by nations applying under this act. The GAO doesn't sound like the right committee to "determine what actions will be required" for compliance.

Also tidied up to close off issues raised

Yours,

[Abacathea]

Bump for further feedback

[Abacathea]

If no further feedback submitting tonight.

[Discoveria]

It reads a lot better, and all my substantive points have been addressed. Tentative support.

[United Federation of Canada]

If no further feedback submitting tonight.

At this time we are willing to tentatively support this act.

[Christian Democrats]

i: Mandates that nations allowing uranium mining within their territory conduct an annual audit of each operational mine to ensure that basic radiation precautions are in place and being utilized.

ii: Charges all national governance with the responsibility of assessing operational mines for any issues relating to waste product disposal, radiation containment and structural integrity.

Uranium ore does not pose any special radiological dangers to miners. Radiation reaches harmful levels only when uranium is enriched. The main risk for uranium miners is the same as the main risk faced by coal miners: lung cancer, something this proposal fails to address.

AGAINST

You're safe as long as you don't inhale the stuff.

[Abacathea]

Uranium ore does not pose any special radiological dangers to miners. Radiation reaches harmful levels only when uranium is enriched. The main risk for uranium miners is the same as the main risk faced by coal miners: lung cancer, something this proposal fails to address.

Underline mine. Whether or not you deem it special or not, to say there are nil radiological factors involved would be a lie, hence to requote the section you did, and again i'll underline it

i: Mandates that nations allowing uranium mining within their territory conduct an annual audit of each operational mine to ensure that basic radiation precautions are in place and being utilized.

Regarding the lung cancer issue, lets see, a mining standards act, that didn't dip a toe into what would only have become murky cancer based waters? I don't think there's many delegates here who wouldn't understand my leaving it alone.

AGAINST

I have always respected peoples right to vote their own way, even when their own way is slightly misguided. As per usual, no diplomatic relations will be lost CD.

(Image)

You're safe as long as you don't inhale the stuff.

Not entirely true, especially if the basic safety criteria isn't met that I outlined above, but remember, and this is important, this is an environmental proposal. The safety of people is a secondary goal (wow does my mouth taste dirty after saying that), the environmental damage, of which there is substantial research and evidence of is the core point here.

[Araraukar]

Not entirely true, especially if the basic safety criteria isn't met that I outlined above, but remember, and this is important, this is an environmental proposal. The safety of people is a secondary goal (wow does my mouth taste dirty after saying that), the environmental damage, of which there is substantial research and evidence of is the core point here.

OOC: Uranium radioactivity aside, it's also still a poisonous element. Very poisonous to living creatures just on its own.

[The Most Glorious Hack]

OOC: Uranium radioactivity aside, it's also still a poisonous element. Very poisonous to living creatures just on its own.

So's oxygen in high enough concentrations.