Secrecy surrounds the Australian government's plans to sell Australian uranium to Indonesia. But evidence gathered by Greenpeace exposes its eagerness to be a big player in Indonesia's decision to go nuclear over the next decade. PIP HINMAN reports on a potential disaster.
Lured by the prospect of sales in a world uranium glut, the government has been discussing a deal with the Suharto regime. The Australia-Indonesia Nuclear Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement, due to have been signed last November, was delayed by Indonesia's pro-nuclear minister for research and development, Dr B.J. Habibie.
Foreign affairs and trade minister Gareth Evans says the agreement does not include uranium sales. He does admit to having had some "informal" talks with his Indonesian counterparts on the subject and that the agreement does refer to the "potential" for future sales.
In a letter to the executive director of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Patricia Caswell, earlier this year, Evans outlined the government's reasons for signing the agreement.
Top of the list is Indonesia's "cautious and responsible approach to the development of its nuclear program". Cooperation between the two countries will "provide Australia with assurance that high safety standards continue to be maintained". And anyway, Evans says, what this agreement is really about is joint work in "peaceful nuclear fields", including nuclear medicine, radiation protection, nuclear- related safety information and technology and applications of radioisotopes.
But as Greenpeace's anti-nuclear campaigner, Jean McSorley, put it to Green Left Weekly, "If the Australian government had serious concerns about the environmental impact of nuclear power, they would not be supporting Indonesia's plan to go nuclear.
"The argument that Indonesia has the sovereign right to decide on its own energy program, and that the best we can do is to play a role in ensuring the safeguards are tight, is weak.
"Inspections of nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency, of which Australia is a regional board member, can only occur at the invite of the country concerned. IAEA members have no right of entry by themselves, so how can Australia really ensure that safety standards are met?"
According to Dr Clive Hamilton, a research director for the Resource Assessment Commission, who spent the past two years as a senior adviser to the Indonesian government on natural resources and economic policy, there is a widespread belief in the Indonesian government that it "'cannot afford' to adhere to strict environmental standards because growth and development are more important".
While Evans has remained vague about the scope of the agreement, it is clear that the Australian government wants a slice of the economic action as Indonesia prepares to build 12 nuclear reactors over the next decade. The market for uranium is a buyers' market now, and, as Indonesian government officials like to point out, Indonesia is not starved of options.
Indonesia's decision to go nuclear, Evans told Caswell, "could ultimately put it at the forefront of regional development in terms of modern nuclear technology and the range of activities and expertise involved ... it is in Australia's interest that there be close contact and cooperation in this area."
Australian links
Greenpeace and the Movement Against Uranium Mining have evidence that, for some years, the Labor government has helped uranium mining companies position themselves to capitalise on Indonesia's decision to go nuclear.
One of the links between Australian mining companies and the Indonesian program runs via Japan. Kansai Electric, whose subsidiary, New Japan Engineering Consultants, is carrying out the US$15.7 million feasibility study for the first Java reactor, is a partner in the Japan-Australia Uranium Resources Development Company (JAURD) and has a 10% stake in Energy Resources of Australia. (ERA operates Ranger in the Northern Territory, the third largest uranium mine in the Western world.) Kansai's senior managing director is both the president of JAURD and an ERA director.
According to Greenpeace, the company most likely to be awarded the US$2.1 billion 600-1000 MW nuclear reactor contract is the Mitsubishi consortium, which has strong ties to Kansai. A deal has been worked out between the owners of Ranger and Roxby Downs in South Australia, whereby any sales of uranium to Indonesia would be split 50-50. Roxby Downs, which also supplies Kansai, has already received influential political backing to pursue a more aggressive sales technique in Asia.
In 1991, a delegation of Indonesian officials visited Ranger. Shortly after, the director general of Indonesia's National Atomic Energy Agency (BATAN), Djali Ahimsa, announced that Indonesia would be happy to import Australian uranium, but that if that were not possible, it could go elsewhere.
Australia's position on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is key to promoting Indonesia's decision to build the controversial reactors, and positions Australian uranium mining companies for future sales. Greenpeace has criticised the role of Australia in this forum, noting that, based on 1985 figures, of the total IAEA income, only about 8% is allocated to nuclear safety issues, and just over 3% for the safety of nuclear installations.
The IAEA has provided cover for the Indonesian government's secrecy about its plans. A 1990 IAEA-hosted "public information seminar" in Canberra to which 50 selected journalists were invited and from which environment organisation representatives were excluded, allowed the BATAN deputy director general to claim that it is encouraging a public debate.
Big risks
Indonesian officials and, more recently Australian government officials, are now countering what they say is a "misinformation" campaign by opponents of nuclear power.
Ahimsa told the ABC's AM program on September 3 that power generated from uranium would be cheaper than natural gas or coal; that while no-one could give a 100% guarantee that the reactors would not be affected by earthquakes, he knew that Japan's plan for 40 reactors, also in a seismic area, had not encountered problems and that no-one should worry because the reactor designers, "just like any house designer", would take the specific geography into account.
Even Evans, in reply to a question asked by Northern Territory CLP Senator Grant Tambling on August 31, said "Our judgment is that the kind of risks that have been alleged to be associated with the implementation of that [Indonesian nuclear] program are nothing like as severe or as substantial as has been claimed ... the Indonesians will not be going for any off-the-shelf cheapie [reactor] from the former Soviet Union or somewhere, but will be getting the most advanced and safe reactor systems."
Such claims do not counter the fact that major nuclear accidents have occurred with frightening frequency. Added to this, the lack of a waste-disposal solution, and the expense of decommissioning old or faulty reactors, make nuclear power generation extremely dangerous and costly.
In the wake of the Sellafield, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl disasters, public opinion has swung against the nuclear option. Even its proponents admit this fact.
The US business magazine Forbes had this to say six years after the Three Mile Island meltdown in 1979:
"The failure of the US nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster of monumental scale ... It is a defeat for the US consumer and for the competitiveness of the US industry, for the utilities that undertook the program and for the private enterprise system that made it possible. Without even recognising the risks, the US electric power industry undertook a commitment bigger than the space program or the Vietnam war."
In its 1992 submission to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Greenpeace spelled out the dangers of a nuclear accident in Java. Even a relatively small-scale accident at the Semenanajung Muria site on the north coast of central Java would have a phenomenal impact on Java and neighbouring countries.
As McSorley points out, "Darwin is closer to the Muria Peninsula, which is where the first reactor will be sited, than Scotland is to Chernobyl".
Java, home to 100 million people, has one of the highest population densities in the world (818 people per square kilometre). The population within 16 kilometres of the Muria reactor is estimated to be 45,000.
The island is located on the "Ring of Fire", so-called because of its frequent and violent geological activity. It has more than 100 volcanoes, 15 of which are active. The Seismographic Institute of Jakarta registers two to three earthquakes a day.
According to Dr Neville Rosengren, a geomorphologist at La Trobe University College in Bendigo, Java is among the half-dozen places in the world with the highest risk of volcanic and earthquake activity.
"From a geological point of view, it would be hard to find anywhere in Java that you could say is low-risk", he told the Age last year. While Mount Muryo, near the site of the Muria plant, has no record of eruptions since 1600, he described it as "a volcano with some potential, as all volcanoes in Indonesia have to be regarded as such". The surprise awakening of Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines after nearly 700 years of silence should be enough to quash claims that Java is a safe site for reactors.
Last century's famous explosion at Krakatoa — which caused massive tidal waves and was of such force that it covered the world in a fine dust — is estimated to have caused the death of some 30,000 people. Over the last century, the epicentres of two major earthquakes measuring 9 and 6.5 on the Richter scale, were only 50-70 kilometres from the proposed reactor site.
Greenpeace points out that small-scale contamination from the plant would have a major impact on the Indonesian economy. But the full impact of a serious nuclear accident in Indonesia is "almost unthinkable". Substantial areas of Java would be severely contaminated and require immediate evacuation. Neighbouring Indonesian islands would also be affected, as would large areas of Malaysia, Singapore, Papua New Guinea and Australia, depending on the season and the wind direction. Millions of people would have to be evacuated.
The Chernobyl accident released only 3.5% of the radioactivity contained within the reactor and the radioactive contamination spread as far as Scotland, the Atlantic coast of Ireland, Spain and Portugal.
Approximately 135,000 people were permanently evacuated from the industrial towns around Chernobyl, and over the next four years another 150,000 will have to be evacuated.
Safer alternatives
Apart from the safety aspects, environmentalists have pointed out that, for a country rich in oil, coal and gas and with the potential to generate water power and wind power, the decision to go nuclear makes little economic sense.
Indonesia is the world's largest exporter of liquefied natural gas, sending almost 20 million tonnes a year to Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Gas exports in 1989 earned Indonesia just under US$3 billion. Coal reserves are believed to be in excess of 28 billion tonnes, rising to 50 billion tonnes by 2000. Indonesia has geothermal reserves sufficient to provide 16,000 MW of electricity. The reactors are expected to provide only about 12,000 MW.
Indonesian officials claim that nuclear power is the only way to satisfy the country's power requirements. Indonesia has Asia's fastest growth of electricity consumption. Officials project a 17% per year increase in electricity demand, as compared to 1.5% for China. But, as Indonesia's environmentalists have pointed out, satisfying this demand with nuclear power would mean the construction of two new 600 MW nuclear power stations every year!
Despite the threat of repression, an Indonesian anti-nuclear movement, led by the environment organisation WAHLI, is growing. One of Indonesia's best known authors, Mochtar Lubis, has called for a referendum on nuclear power. The nuclear physicist Lik Wilardjo is opposed and has taken on the pro-nuclear lobby in the national press. Obviously feeling the pressure, the Indonesian minister of mines has said that a solution to the nuclear waste problem has to be found before proceeding with the program.
Even those Indonesian experts in favour of the nuclear power option find it hard to paint a rosy picture. Dr Ing Nengah Suja, from the state-owned electricity utility, PLN, has admitted that nuclear power is more expensive than other naturally occurring energy sources which are readily available in Indonesia.
The World Bank ranked nuclear power last among the options for meeting Indonesia's rising electricity demand. Its 1988 report conceded that "for the short to medium term a nuclear power program can't be justified for Indonesia". It said that Indonesia has "economically developable hydroelectric resources five times its present electricity usage".
Greenpeace points out, "The irony is that Indonesia may be gaining money from selling gas and oil, but it will pay dearly to buy a nuclear program from the Japanese".
A combination of industrial efficiency and the maximisation of conservation efforts could have major impact on Indonesia's future energy demands, Greenpeace says, especially if combined with an increase in the use of geothermal power and natural gas.
It suggests that a diversified small-scale energy technology program would best meet the demands of rural Indonesia, the sector most likely to remain sidelined in the rush for nuclear energy. "A combination of solar, biomass, hydro, and geothermal projects will obviate the need for large scale centralised power plants — be they coal or nuclear. Such projects have the advantage of involving local labour for maintenance, and also require more skilled tradespeople."
They point out that the US company, Onocal, the world's largest producer of geothermal energy, has said that it could build geothermal plants in Indonesia for considerably less than coal or nuclear plants.
Waste problem
With all the attention focused on reactor construction, very little has been paid to solving the problem of nuclear waste. BATAN has said it is considering using an uninhabited island to dump the waste. But even state-of-the-art disposal sites are not immune to water encroachment from high rainfall. Water intrusion leads to off-site contamination, and the region's unstable geology also makes this option highly unsuitable.
Here too, the Australian government seems more than happy to help out.
A joint Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation-CRA-BHP-ERA pilot plant to develop Synroc — a synthetic rock claimed to immobilise high-level liquid waste — could involve Australia in the eventual importing of high-level nuclear waste. Greenpeace has warned that as Australia becomes more involved in the regional trade in uranium, the pressure will increase to take the end products.
"For the small overcrowded island nations with nuclear power programs, Australia is an extremely attractive dumping ground", McSorley says. "The irony is that this process cannot be used on spent fuel. In fact spent fuel would have to be shipped abroad and reprocessed, a costly and hazardous operation, before the Synroc process could be applied."
ANSTO has already come under fire for radiation leaks from the storage of 1550 spent fuel rods at Lucas Heights near Sydney, McSorley said. Yet it claims to be able to advise on nuclear waste management abroad.
Neighbours
Indonesian officials point to the nuclear plans of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan as evidence that this form of energy is both clean and competitive. BATAN's chief told the ABC that Japan is also in a seismic area, but that didn't stop it planning 40 new reactors over the next 20 years.
But Japan is facing mounting public opposition to its nuclear program, following an accident at the Mihama No 2 reactor in 1991. The accident in the pressurised water reactor — the same type Indonesia looks likely to use — almost led to a Three Mile Island-style meltdown.
Taiwan has had major demonstrations over the siting of a radioactive waste dump and a nuclear power plant. South Korea has also had problems finding money for its nuclear projects.
Of the countries expected to vie for the reactor contract, most are experiencing major setbacks in their domestic nuclear power industries. Of the 33 advanced capitalist countries that have nuclear power, 19 have moratoriums or phase-out policies.
In France the state electricity utility EDF has accumulated debts of over US$39 billion and now has to find the money for the previously overlooked costs of nuclear waste disposal and plant decommissioning.
In the mid-1970s, West Germany put its nuclear program on hold, and plans to reprocess spent fuel have now been cancelled. In the former East Germany, the nuclear power industry is being rapidly phased out because of safety fears.
From 1976 to 1989, plans for no fewer than 108 nuclear plants were cancelled in the US. In Canada, plans to build 12 reactors have been shelved. And in all the above countries, there are major concerns over nuclear waste disposal and reactor decommissioning.
Given the extent of public opposition in Europe, many in the nuclear industry have turned their sights to Asia. Nuclear is being held out as the clean alternative to dirty coal plants. But, according to Greenpeace, the replacement of coal power plants globally would require 5000 large nuclear power plants to be built between now and 2025, with nearly half located in the Third World.
According to the nuclear experts Keepin and Kats, even if the massive nuclear program were to go ahead, greenhouse emissions would still continue to grow because of the increased use of oil and natural gas, which is used in activities that cannot be replaced by nuclear power stations.
Nuclear power supplies less than 5% of the world's energy, less than that contributed by the burning of firewood. But it takes the largest percentage of energy research and development budgets.
For all these reasons, Indonesian anti-nuclear activists are gearing up to oppose the sale of Australian uranium to Indonesia. Mohammed Anung from WAHLI told Green Left that the effort by the Australian government to establish a nuclear technology agreement and to lobby for Indonesia to buy uranium is a "totally irresponsible action".
"Australia is digging up foreign exchange at the expense of the suffering of others, in particular the poor in a developing country like Indonesia", Anung said.
"At the same time Australia should consider the fact that if there was an accident in an Indonesian reactor, the nuclear radiation fallout zone, with the help of winds blowing in Australia's direction six months a year, would reach your country.
"Will Australia stay silent and let this happen? WAHLI calls on Australians to join in the struggle to keep our region free from the nuclear threat and to stop the sale of Australian uranium to Indonesia."