CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
vessels, the 91 dar limit and Hong Kong Government restrictions on the total number of visits will have to be raised, hence the current proposal to increase the present 91 ship days to 121. However, any such increase in usage must avait the conclusion of work on the new berthing criteria by the NPVSC. Difficulties have been encountered in attempting to establish the new criteria and it is likely to be some time before the NPWSC hand down a decision and Hong Kong's case is reviewed. Thus our holding response to the USN (Reference B), which quoted late 1979 as the likely date for a decision, is likely to prove over optomistic. When decisions do emerge it is likely that the criteria for obtaining berth clearances will be more stringent than those now in force. While, other factors being equal, we should still plan on putting the case for an increase of berth usage before the NPWSC, its acceptance might prove to be more difficult than had previously been supposed.
VISITS BY NUCLEAR POWERED SURFACE WARSHIPS
4. At the same time as the approach to the NPWSC on the question of increased berth usage at Hong Kong is made we will also have to invite the Committee to consider the question of the possible increase in the number of visits by US surface NPWs to Hong Kong, a factor which further complicates the problem. The implication of such visits for safety procedures has also been noted by CAPIC Hong Kong who has discerned that while the NUSAFE procedures are reared specifically to the needs of SSNs, they are inapplicable to large surface, such as CVANS and CGNS, which may visit the colony.
5.
NPW,
The Hong Kong contingency plans are not unique in this respect, and it is difficult to see how the special needs of surface vessels can be accommodated when the USN is traditionally reticent in supplying reactor details. The NPWSC really has no alternative but to consider them in the same way as SSNs, and this, indeed, is how they have based their judgement in the past.
6. CAPIC Hong Kong's concern may stem from the assumption that the number of such visits are likely to increase in coming years. Our files, which may not reflect the true picture as the US submits requests for visits direct to CAPIC Hong Kong, indicate only two visits by surface NPWs in 1976-77. I can find nothing to suggest that an increase will occur much before 1980, due to the Pacific Fleet refit programme. Nevertheless,I propose to remind CAPIC Hong Kong of the requirement to inform the NPWSC of proposed visits by surface NPWS (and SSBNs) in line with the requirement laid down for visits to UK ports and this will enable us to monitor the situation.
7.
From our records it would also appear that we have never formally informed the Hong Kong Government that surface NPs, although different in all major respects from SSNs, have been considered as part of the berth clearance given to the colony by the MPWGQ. I would imagine that they are aware of thin element, 豐 iC polely because some of the bertha pro specificnlly eloured for surface shins only. However, following the NPWSC's decision on berths usage once the revised criteria have been agreed,I propose
CONTPEMā
**