CONFIDENTIAL
177655
MDLIAN 5631
PROVISION OF SUCH INFORMATION IN THE AGREEMENT ON OFF-SITE ISSUES.
6. THEY THEN HANDED OVER A PAPER IN WHICH THEY PROPOSED THAT :
A) THEY WOULD NOTIFY US VIA THE NCNA OF A SITE
EMERGENCY SITUATION WITH SUPPORTING FACTS AND DATA AS SPECIFIED UNDER ARTICLE 5 OF THE IAEA CONVENTION ON EARLY NOTIFICATION WHERE APPROPRIATE. THE GUANGDONG EMERGENCY COMMITTEE OFFICE WOULD PASS ON THE INFORMATION WITHIN TWO HOURS OF RECEIPT OF THE INFORMATION FROM THE PLANT (BUT THEY OFFERED NO REPEAT NO COMMITMENT ON HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE FOR THE INFORMATION TO BE PASSED FROM THE PLANT TO THE EMERGENCY COMMITTEE OFFICE, AND FROM NCNA TO THE HONG KONG GOVERNMENT); AND
B) WHERE APPROPRIATE, THEY WOULD NOTIFY US (WITH
NO REPEAT NO TIME LIMITS) OF ALL OTHER INCIDENTS, INCLUDING STANDBY AND PLANT EMERGENCIES, ACCORDING TO THE INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR EVENT SCALE (INES) AND IN THE INES REPORT FORMAT A COPY OF THE REPORT WOULD BE GIVEN TO US AT THE SAME TIME IT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE IAEA.
7. WE EXPRESSED DISAPPOINTMENT WITH THE GUANGDONG SIDE'S PROPOSAL. WE REITERATED THAT THE INFORMATION WE ASKED FOR, AND THE ARRANGEMENTS WE PROPOSED, WERE REQUIRED TO MEET A PRACTICAL NEED. WE TOOK ISSUE WITH THEIR ARGUMENT THAT THE AGREEMENT ON OFF-SITE ARRANGEMENTS HAD ALREADY SETTLED THE QUESTIONS OF COMMUNICATION CHANNELS AND THE METEOROLOGICAL AND RADIATION MONITORING DATA TO BE EXCHANGED, AND THAT THERE WAS NO FURTHER NEED TO DISCUSS THESE QUESTIONS. WE POINTED OUT THAT THEY HAD INSISTED, IN THE EARLIER DISCUSSIONS OF OFF-SITE MATTERS, THAT THE SCOPE OF THESE DISCUSSIONS WAS CONFINED TO OFF-SITE SITUATIONS. IT WAS CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD BY BOTH SIDES AT THE TIME THAT SPECIFIC ARRANGEMENTS FOR ON-SITE MATTERS WOULD BE DISCUSSED SEPARATELY AND THAT THE NCNA CHANNEL REFERRED TO IN CONSENSUS PAPER 1 WAS MEANT FOR THE EXCHANGE OF ROUTINE INFORMATION SUCH AS ANNUAL BULLETINS, AND NOT REPEAT NOT EMERGENCY INFORMATION. WITH REGARD TO THE CHANNEL OF COMMUNICATION, WW MADE IT CLEAR THAT THEIR PROPOSAL TO USE NCNA AS A COMMUNICATION CHANCE WAS UNACCEPTABLE; IT WAS NEITHER APPROPRIATE NOR PRACTICAL. THE NCNA WAS NOT REPEAT NOT AN EMERGENCY ORGANISATION MANNED ROUND
3
PAGE CONFIDENTIAL