TNAG-1657-FCO40-2305-Daya-Bay-nuclear-power-station-project-safety-concerns-in-Ho-1987 — Page 82

5

17 Discussion of this topic continued on day 3. This re-affirmed the general support for a new technical working group (TWG) to be established to define technically the point at which the provisions of the Convention could cease to apply. It would then be for individual states to decide whether to take up the option at that minimum point or at some other point when risks were lower still.

18 The UK supported the proposal, but made it clear that the UK licensing system made it unlikely that they would take advantage of such an option.

19

It was agreed that the Group should report to the NEA Steering Committee in the spring of 1987 their view that the Paris Convention applied to installations in the course of decommissioning; that it should be possible for states to disapply the provisions of the Convention to such an installation at an appropriate time; and that the Group was to establish a TWG to carry out further work on defining the appropriate time.

20 It was further agreed that the Secretariat would consider both the composition and terms of reference for the TWG. It was envisaged that the TWG would be relatively small, but include legal, radiological protection, decommissioning, nuclear safety and radioactive waste management experts. Its work would be largely a paper review to identify in general terms the levels of risk for different types of plant and then define conditions for disapplication of the Convention taking account of radionuclide inventory and condition of plant following the basic radiological protection criteria set out in the IAEA Transport Regulations.

IV TERRITORIAL SCOPE OF APPLICATION OF PARIS CONVENTION

21 FRG explained that they had extended their own national law on third party liability to cover claims from non-contracting parties because they felt the limited territorial scope of the Paris Convention offended private international law in relation to reparations for damage arising from hazardous operations. Geographically they were in a difficult position, being bordered by both Convention and non-Convention states. They thought it inequitable that victims from, eg Luxembourg or Czechoslovakia should be disadvantaged as compared with those from France or Belgium. However, problems still arose for operators because the Paris Convention said that the financial security provided under that Convention could only be used to meet claims under that Convention. The Chairman noted that the scope of the Convention had been extended in 1971 in relation to transport. He also noted that any extension of territorial scope created difficulties in terms of the Brussels Convention, where such extension required the consent of all parties, and the fact that such extension could sooner exhaust funds available under the Paris Convention without any certainty that contributions would be available under the Brussels Convention. Austria supported the FRG position and said there was advantage to operators in having clearly defined liability limits.