Secrecy & nuclear security

November 12, 2013

EDITORIAL: Secrecy supported nuclear safety myth

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/views/editorial/AJ201311120026

In 1997, the government produced a secret document describing measures to be taken to protect nuclear power plants from terrorist attacks.

It listed security measures, such as the installation of intrusion detection sensors, as well as steps that would be taken by the Self-Defense Forces, police and the Maritime Safety Agency, now called Japan Coast Guard.

The Asahi Shimbun later obtained a copy of the confidential document and reported on its content in September 2011.

If a current version of the document with the same content exists, would it be designated as a “specific secret” for protection under the proposed new state secrets legislation?

One key question with regard to continuing Diet debate on the bill to protect state secrets is how information concerning nuclear power plants should be treated.

As an example of what kind of information concerning nuclear safety would be designated as a state secret under the envisioned law, Masako Mori, minister in charge of the bill, cited “the situation of the implementation of security measures by police to protect nuclear plants.”

But the scope of information that would be withheld is not clear.

Mori also said the design drawings of nuclear power plants would not be subject to confidentiality. Then, how about other related information? A wide range of information concerning nuclear safety could be designated as confidential information.

Independent experts would be involved in the development of the criteria for designating information as a specific secret to be protected. But they would not have the power to check the appropriateness of individual cases of designation.

It is understandable that certain pieces of information concerning safeguard measures at nuclear plants would be designated as secrets. But once the law is enforced, it would be extremely difficult for any third party, including the Diet and courts, to examine and judge the legitimacy of the designation.

Under the proposed law, bureaucrats would be effectively allowed to decide what information should be designated as a state secret. We fear that such decisions could be made in an arbitrary manner.

Let us think about one case in point.

In 1984, the Foreign Ministry secretly made estimates of casualties that could result from an attack against a nuclear power plant. The simulations showed that the number of acute deaths could reach up to 18,000 unless mass emergency evacuation was carried out.

The ministry, however, classified the estimates as “for internal use only” because of concerns about the impact of the information on the anti-nuclear movement.

The simulations covered cases of a so-called station blackout--the total loss of power sources for a nuclear plant--due to the destruction of power transmission lines and the electric supply system within a given plant. That’s the situation that developed at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant after the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami hit on March 11, 2011.

If the results of the ministry’s estimation had been published, more effective safety measures might have been taken at the Fukushima plant. But the information was actually classified as confidential and not shared even within the government.

As a result, a serious nuclear security flaw was overlooked. The “safety myth” concerning nuclear power generation was apparently supported by the bureaucratic penchant for secrecy and the inaction of politicians who allowed the problem to remain untouched for so long.

It was not until September 2011, six months after the disaster unfolded at the Fukushima plant, that an expert panel of the government’s Atomic Energy Commission published a report on measures for greater nuclear security, such as steps to enhance protection against terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants. It was the first report from the expert group in three decades or so.

The government has a history of covering up vital information and postponing crucial decisions. Things will only become worse if the proposed legislation is enacted.

Will protecting “specific secrets” really make this nation safer? We should re-examine this question thoroughly.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Nov. 12