[PASSED] Nuclear Power Safety Act

[Goobergunchia]

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.

[Cenetra]

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

[Bears Armed]

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

[Lestaria and Neuchies]

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.

[Lestaria and Neuchies]

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.

[Bears Armed]

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...

[Lestaria and Neuchies]

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.

[Manuresia]

I am for nuclear weapons. what do you know?

[Lestaria and Neuchies]

I am for nuclear weapons. what do you know?

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

[Silvadus]

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.

[Moronist Decisions]

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.

[Lestaria and Neuchies]

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.

[Damanucus]

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Mizialand]

I think your revised draft is a good one. Keep up the good work!

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

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.)

[Favinnystan]

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

[Syrkania]

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

[Darcjjew]

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.

[Silvadus]

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.

[Darcjjew]

The Armed Republic of Darcjjew appoves this proposal.


-John N. Lim, Minister of Foreign Affairs

[Favinnystan]

The Dominion Of Favinnystan do not accept this proposal

Signed

Gary Salco

Ambassoder to WA

[Damanucus]

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

[Bears Armed]

OOC: This covers reactors aboard nuclear-powered warships, as well as civilian-controlled reactors, yes?

[Glenn]

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.

[Maklohi Vai]

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.