End Of Mission Report
J. D. Jamison HOK/9/002-07 Page 7 of 8
planning radius which is consistent with international practice,
and no other country requires evacuation planning beyond 20 km.
By conventional use in emergency planning and response, "evacuate"
suggests removing people from their homes or workplaces and sending them to an area of safety. Clearing people from a body of
water, park or recreation area, is different in that it does not
involve the disruption of lives that is produced by "evacuation"
from home, school and workplace. When such action is taken in the
absence of a clear and present hazard, it is termed "precautionary", meaning that it is being done primarily to reduce
the possibility that the action will have to be carried out at a
later time under less favorable circumstances.
The legal authority and logistic capability of the Hong Kong government to enforce an "evacuation" of Mirs Bay is doubtful, considering that Chinese vessels have rights of passage there and the masters of such vessels (or vessels of other nations enroute
to or from Chinese ports in Mirs Bay) would be unlikely to heed an "evacuation order" not issued or supported by the Chinese government. To state in the DBCP that Hong Kong will "evacuate" all ships in Mirs Bay within 24 km of the power station suggests that Hong Kong has both the authority and the willingness to enforce such an "evacuation". This assertion would probably be viewed by the Chinese as an encroachment on their sovereignty.
Considering the points above, it is suggested that the Hong Kong Government specify in the DBCP only that which it: 1) has objective reasons and a moral obligation to do, and 2) can actually hope to accomplish, i.e., to advise vessels in the Mirs Bay area to exit or avoid the area because of a potential radiological hazard. To say more suggests commitment and willingness on the part of Government to remove the vessels, if
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.