TNAG-1657-FCO40-2305-Daya-Bay-nuclear-power-station-project-safety-concerns-in-Ho-1987 — Page 80

3

9 With regard to future work on development of a joint Protocol there was general agreement that such work would be worthwhile on its own account even though one of its main aims was to increase the attractiveness of the Convention system to other countries. The UK supported this view.

10 In the course of discussion IAEA noted that the people's Republic of China had indicated informally that they wished to join the Vienna Convention.

V

AFTER CHERNOBYL

11

Day 2 was largely taken up with a discussion of the implications of Chernobyl for the third party liability regime. The major point of concern was the extent to which the costs of "preventive measures" should be compensatable within the terms of the Paris (and Brussels) Convention. In this context "preventive measures" had a rather broad definition which covered all actions which may be taken by the operator, Governments or other competent authorities or by third parties to minimise or eliminate the effects of a nuclear incident. It could include, for example, technical measures under the mutual assistance convention, evacuation procedures, decontamination and economic loss arising from such measures.

12 The subject was clearly controversial and involved not only interpretation of the intent of the Convention but also raised questions of national and international law and practice. Consensus was nevertheless reached upon the major points at issue, and it was agreed that the Secretariat should produce draft Recommendations for the NEA Steering Committee which could be further considered at the next meeting.

13 The main points of agreement were:

a)

b)

c)

compensation could only be payable under the Conventions where an incident actually occurred (eg radioactivity was released to the environment). Where actions were taken as a precaution (eg local evacuation) in a developing potentially dangerous situation, but in the event the situation was brought under control with no release, then the provisions of the Convention would not apply;

any form of costs incurred by third parties (whether private or public) in dealing with the effects of a release of radioactivity should be capable of being included as "damage" within the meaning of the Convention;

any costs of "preventive measures" incurred by the operator of an installation would fall to the operator and not be included within amounts available for compensation even if such costs were incurred as part of a wider public duty (eg decontamination costs);