Questions linger on Indonesia's nuclear plan

By Dewi Anggraeni

MELBOURNE (JP): In this era of increasing sophistication in communication technology, very few nations can plan a major move without it eventually being known by the surrounding nations, then by the whole world. This is notably so if the plan will have regional or global repercussions, such as the building of a nuclear power plant.

Indonesia's plan to develop a nuclear power plant at Muria Peninsula in Java, therefore, has attracted regional and international attention. On April 24, Greenpeace jointly organized here a forum on the prospects of nuclear power in Indonesia with the International Forum on Development in Indonesia and Australian Council for Overseas Aid.

Since the issue often attracts emotional responses, it was sobering to attend a forum where different aspects of the nuclear issue were discussed. One such discussion was facilitated by Gerry van Klinken, a Brisbane academic and current editor of Inside Indonesia.

Van Klinken's concern was with the legal implication of Indonesia possessing a nuclear reactor plant. His discussion concentrated on the draft legislation being considered by the House of Representatives, for the purpose of regulating an anticipated nuclear power industry.

The draft, according to van Klinken, is generally a responsible document that will bring Indonesia into line with international standards. However, he also indicated some serious deficiencies in it.

Van Klinken projects the draft against existing regulations in other parts of the world governing nuclear power reactors in case of accidents. Two international standards regulate nuclear practice worldwide: the Paris Convention for Western Europe and the Vienna Convention, linked to the UN and open to all.

In some aspects, the Indonesian draft fares well. The draft includes in its definition nuclear damage and environmental destruction, in addition to personal injury and property damage, while the Paris Convention only considers personal injury and property damage.

The draft also allows more generous time limits after an accident, during which a victim may claim damages, than those allowed by the Paris Convention. It specifies an upper limit of 30 years, or 40 years in the case of an accident caused by stray nuclear materials. It also sets a maximum three-year period after the discovery of an injury during which a victim may claim compensation. Paris specifies 10 years, 20 years and two years respectively.

The generosity, however, is somewhat weakened by the absence of explicit mention of state liability. No insurance companies for example, will allow more than 10 years liability limit. Who would the victim turn to in cases where the limit had been stretched beyond 10 years? Implicitly, the state will assume this responsibility. Nonetheless, without explicit mention, it might be open to legal dispute, the last thing a victim would wish to happen.

Van Klinken sees weaknesses in the draft's recognition of four cases of exoneration: the operator is exonerated if the accident is caused by war between states; civil war; a natural disaster exceeding design criteria; or gross negligence on the part of the victim. Because a geological fault has been detected along Juana River, it will be extremely difficult to allay fears that an earthquake may cause a nuclear accident in Indonesia, especially if it appears that no compensation is available for the worst case.

The draft falls short in this respect against many countries. France, Japan and Switzerland oblige the state to assume liabilities in the four cases. Britain, Canada, the U.S. and the Netherlands do not exonerate for natural disasters, arguing that the operator ought to foresee them. Germany does not allow exoneration at all.

Another case highlighted in the forum is the uncertainty whether the regulatory body stipulated by the draft will be sufficiently independent. Clause 3 of the draft stipulates that there will be an executive agency to exploit nuclear energy (presumably the National Atomic Energy Agency) and a supervisory agency called the Nuclear Power Supervisory Board. It is still not clear how much power the board will have to enforce the regulations, if indeed it will be able to maintain its independence.

The operator's maximum liability set by the draft is also a source of concern. US$200 million (Rp 450 billion) for each accident, compared to $450 million set by Paris, sounds alarmingly inadequate, especially as even the Paris limits proved inadequate in the case of Chernobyl.

While the draft includes environmental destruction in its definition of nuclear damage, one practical aspect is still unclear. Nowhere in the draft is it made clear how individuals can claim for such damage.

"Unless this question is answered it will remain a dead letter," said van Klinken.

The forum is but one manifestation of international concern about Indonesia's plan to develop a nuclear power plant, and as such, should be responded to in all seriousness and with a great deal of goodwill and introspection.

The writer is a free-lance journalist based in Melbourne.