Questions linger on Indonesia's nuclear plan

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.