TNAG-1657-FCO40-2305-Daya-Bay-nuclear-power-station-project-safety-concerns-in-Ho-1987 — Page 81

d)

e)

the effectiveness of any "preventive measures" taken was irrelevant in deciding whether costs should be eligible for compensation. The main criterion for such costs to be eligible should be the reasonableness of the measures, considered ex ante;

no agreement could be reached at this stage on what represented an appropriate level of contamination of produce beyond which compensation may be paid to the producer. Various expert groups were examining the possibilities for harmonisation of intervention levels, but it was clear that national approaches varied, and without international agreement on intervention levels it was not practical to establish a general rule that intervention by a state on the marketing of produce should automatically attract compensation. The current position in most states was that compensation could only be paid in cases where direct damage could be demonstrated.

14 The position taken by the UK delegation was that whilst (a) and (b) above represented an acceptable interpretation of the Convention, the position in UK legislation was that compensation was payable only in respect of injury to any person or damage to any property of any person arising out of or resulting from the radioactive properties of any nuclear matter. It seemed unlikely that UK legislation as it stood could accept such an interpretation of the Convention. On (c) above, the UK pointed out that operators were in any case under a duty to their insurers to take all appropriate measures to minimise any damage, which reinforced the case that measures taken by the operator could not fall to be compensated under the Convention.

15 In the course of discussion it became clear that some states, and particularly Austria, were opposed to including the costs of "preventive measures" within the amounts of compensation provided for by the Convention as such claims could substantially reduce the amounts available to compensate individuals who suffered direct injury or damage. It was also clear that there was considerable diversity in the definition of "property" in different states. was agreed that FRG should set out the questions needed to expose these differences more clearly. This would be for consideration at the next meeting.

VII

DECOMMISSIONING

16 The day concluded with a short discussion on the application of the Paris Convention during the decommissioning of a nuclear installation. Whilst the Restricted Working Group had reached provisional conclusions on how the point at which the Convention should no longer apply could be identified, further detailed research was required on risk analysis to take matters forward. The Secretariat suggested that this could be done by a new technical working group.