Press Conference by the Chief Cabinet Secretary

JAPANESE

Opening Statement by Chief Cabinet Secretary Edano

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: I would like to report on a few items. The first item concerns the restriction on food products. We have received comments suggesting or requesting that the provisional standard values of radiation for determining whether certain food products should be restricted from shipping or consumption should be relaxed. However, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) has decided not to change the limit, based on the discussion among specialists from the Food Safety Commission (FSC), the Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC), and other bodies. Naturally, the Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters has been receiving reports on it in a timely manner from the MHLW. Although alternative figures were suggested for the safety limit, from the perspective of ensuring the absolute safety of consumers, the MHLW has decided that the provisional standard values will not be revised at this moment. Simultaneously with this discussion, we have asked advice from the NSC concerning the imposition or removal of shipping restrictions and other restrictions. We have made two decisions on this, as explained in the reference materials to be handed out later. A detailed explanation will also be provided by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), the MHLW, and other relevant institutions later. The decisions are made under Prime Minister Kan who chairs the Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters. The first concerns the scope of shipping restrictions and the area to be covered by such restrictions. As we are now receiving results of various kinds of considerations and monitoring, we have decided to allow the restrictions to be imposed or removed on a municipal (city, town, and village) or other level instead of a prefectural level, in consideration of the spread of the contaminated region and how these products are actually being collected for shipment. We have also established the basic rule that a follow-up examination will be conducted every week and that if the resulting figure falls below the provisional standard values three times in a row, the restriction may be removed for the item or area in question. Nevertheless, this must be done with careful consideration to the situation at the nuclear power plant. Also, even after removing the restriction, a weekly examination will be required as long as the emission of radioactive particles persists from the nuclear power plant. In light of these basic principles and pursuant to the Item 3, Article 20 of the Act on Special Measures Concerning Nuclear Emergency Preparedness, we have instructed the Governor of Chiba Prefecture to halt the shipping of certain kinds of vegetable from the following cities, towns, and villages, as radiation above the provisional standard value was detected from March 25 to 31. The vegetables in question are spinach from Katori City and Tako Town in Chiba Prefecture and spinach, bok choy, Garland chrysanthemum, Korean lettuce, celery, and parsley from Asahi City, Chiba Prefecture. Based on the new rule to allow the shipping restriction to be imposed on a smaller level such as municipalities, we have instructed the Governor of Chiba Prefecture to order these municipalities to halt shipping. Although we have received requests from the agricultural sector to relax the safety limit, I believe that by maintaining a rigorous safety limit and applying restrictions in a more precise manner, we can protect other agricultural products from harmful rumors by assuring consumers that these vegetables are safe as long as they are not under the shipping restriction. That I believe is important. Further monitoring and restriction will be carried out in a more precise manner for those products that must be banned from shipping. Given that radiation levels in other products are below this extra-precautions safety limit, I ask the people not to overreact lest they should suffer from harmful rumors just because they are produced in the same prefecture.

The second item concerns the water remaining in the nuclear power plant. I believe that Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) will make an official announcement about it any time now. The Government has approved water collected in two places within the plant to be discharged into ocean, although the water contains radioactive materials, as there is no other choice. For one thing, water collected in the contaminated water treatment facility will be discharged in order to secure a place to relocate water accumulated in and around Unit 2. For another, subdrain water, ground water, and other kinds of water that have started accumulating inside the Unit 5 and 6 turbine buildings will also be discharged. As it has been found out that the water accumulated in and around Unit 2 is highly irradiated, in order to stop it from leaking outside into the ocean as soon as possible, we had to discharge the water in the contaminated water treatment facility which contains far less radioactive materials, although it is unfortunate that still means discharging water containing a certain level of radioactive materials into ocean. Another problem is that water has been oozing into the Unit 5 and 6 turbine buildings and started being collected inside, and if this is left unaddressed, this may affect diesel power generators as well as reactors and fuel pools of Units 5 and 6, which are currently in stable conditions. This water must be removed. Both measures will be done out of compelling necessity for the sake of safety, and will be conducted by the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency as emergency measures pursuant to the Act on Special Measures Concerning Nuclear Emergency Preparedness, based on the report from TEPCO and upon receiving advice from the Nuclear Safety Commission. At the same time, while ensuring that there will be no flaws in transferring the contaminated water and recovering the cooling function for the reactors, the environmental impacts should also be assessed through careful monitoring of ocean water quality, and I have given instructions for this.

Next, the third item, some media has pointed out that a calculation of radioactive material dispersion submitted by the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has not been made public. On hearing those reports, I had the JMA come before me to report the situation and the facts. Let me explain the report. The JMA, upon a request from the IAEA, calculated radioactive material dispersion based on a hypothesis provided by the IAEA and submitted the results thereof. The radioactive materials hypothesized by the IAEA were in each case set at an amount of 1 Becquerel. In other words, it was not based on an actual measurement or prediction of how much of a specific radioactive material has been released. Rather, it was reported to me that the JMA was asked to calculate the dispersion due to weather conditions if a certain amount of radioactive material were to be released, and that they compiled a report thereof. Further, for this simulation, the IAEA's instructions were to simulate what would happen on a 100km scale and report on it. Thus it would not be of use to domestic measures, but is in fact data for the IAEA to assess international effects. For this reason, it was reported to me that the JMA felt that there was no need to make public the results of these calculations and that doing so may breed misunderstanding. Whether or not it was necessary for them to go out of their way to make the information public, it was reported that during this time the media had made the point that the simulation was being carried out and that it should be made public. I told the JMA that at the very least, there was no need, obviously, to hide the information, and that if such things were being pointed out, the information should at least have been made public at that time, accompanied by adequate explanation to prevent the aforementioned misunderstanding. Therefore, my understanding is that if there is need or request, the JMA will make information public. I will repeat that the simulation being carried out here is not based on a question of how much radioactive material has leaked from the nuclear power plant, but rather how a unit of a certain particle might be spread throughout the world due to weather conditions, and this weather-based simulation is being carried out on a 100km scale. Thus it does not necessarily have meaning as a type of domestic simulation. Therefore, I ask the people to not overreact to the information when it is released.

I'm sorry for taking a long time, but there is one last announcement to make. Many people have in fact left the evacuation zone within 20km of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant as well as the “indoor-evacuation” zone between 20km and 30km from the plant, and many shops and homes are empty there. Crimes typical to disaster areas such as burglary and car thefts are occurring, but as far as we have been aware until now, we do not recognize that the number of crimes in general is increasing. Meanwhile, malicious and subtle but groundless rumors have been spreading by word of mouth, mail, and postings on the Internet to capitalize on the anxiety harbored by those who have been forced to evacuate their homes, but the police have confirmed no such fact. Currently, members of the police as well as the Self Defense Forces (SDF) are patrolling these areas, including the zone within the 20km radius, with the proper safety precautions such as protective clothing and Geiger counters. Thus it is not being left as an empty place with no crime prevention or civic order. We intend to further strengthen measures to ensure public security, including these patrols, so that any crimes in these areas do not go unnoticed. Therefore, do not be concerned by unreliable information and please act calmly.

Q&As

REPORTER: This question is about food product restrictions. First, what are the merits for consumers and producers of changing the scope of restrictions from the prefectural level to the municipality level? I understand that items that were regulated on the prefectural level were done so because the product labels were created for the prefectural level. From the perspective of the consumer, however, is there the danger of mixing up items that were assessed on the prefectural level before now that municipal-level restrictions may be removed?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: As you know, in some sense, a basic distribution system has been established for agricultural products that are being distributed on a general basis by the JA (Japan Agriculture) Group and others. In that respect, in the cases of markets, grocery stores, vegetable stands, and other distributors, a solid framework is in place for guaranteeing shipping restrictions on the municipal level. Therefore, shipping restrictions are being implemented by each region's JA organization without being bound to prefectural level labeling. In this way, restrictions are guaranteed. Moreover, amidst these circumstances, and in response to harmful rumors regarding various food products from Fukushima, Ibaraki, and other prefectures, consumers and distributers have already started working to promote the active purchase and consumption of foods that have been confirmed to be safe. This means that safe vegetables and other food products will be secured in terms of quantity for consumers to ensure that safe products are being produced and consumed. I believe that this is meaningful for both producers and consumers. However, I still believe that we will have to remain extremely vigilant in our monitoring and decision-making.

REPORTER: This is in regard to the three-week rule. Has the three weeks already started? Will a starting week be set, or will this week be considered the starting point?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: When we receive the actual request for removal of restrictions, we will check to confirm that past data is trustworthy. Two weeks ago we conducted the first inspection, there was another inspection a week later, and there is another inspection going on today and tomorrow. If the credibility and authenticity of all past inspections can be confirmed and levels are found to be lower than the upper limit on all three inspections, of course those products will be removed from the list subject to restrictions.

REPORTER: The legal obligation to have a product origin label is applied on the prefectural level. From your current explanation can we take it to mean that municipalities will be taking extralegal measures to modify that rule?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: I would like to reiterate that the labeling problem and distribution problem are not necessarily the same. In other words, shipping restrictions are not necessarily limited to municipalities alone. If it is possible to guarantee restrictions on a certain degree of area within a prefecture or a distribution unit, that also is a possibility that we are considering. In terms of distribution, this means that restrictions will be applied to shipments within a scope that is guaranteed with certainty. Even if a certain region of a prefecture becomes subject to these restrictions, agricultural products with labels from abiding prefectures may be distributed. However, in terms of distribution, shipping restrictions will be applied in a vigilant fashion. Therefore, food items that are being distributed to markets are coming from regions where radiation does not exceed the upper limits, so I hope that everyone will eat those products.

REPORTER: This question is regarding your last comment. I believe that consumers are becoming somewhat sensitive about what regions their food products are coming from. Some people may be confused whether to trust food at actual stores in terms of whether it is from a restricted district or from an unrestricted district. Is the Government paying any consideration to conveying such information in a concrete, easy-to-understand manner?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: The smaller details are related to the distribution of agricultural products, and the MAFF will be making an announcement and providing an explanation in the near future. I would like to ask that you forward your inquiry to them. However, from the perspective of safety, the Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters decided that, if it is possible to firmly guarantee a shipping posture of not distributing products from regions that need to be restricted, it would be acceptable to limit restrictions to certain areas within prefectures. Further, and while this is based on the premise that distribution can be guaranteed under the shipping posture I just mentioned, the MAFF will be consulting with agricultural cooperatives and other organizations to respond to the issue of preventing the harmful rumors that are being created about products from other regions within prefectures subject to restrictions.

REPORTER: Moving the focus of the question to water, in Tokyo, for instance, there was once an alert to avoid drinking tap water [for infants]. However, that alert was quickly retracted as radiation levels quickly subsided. Is there a possibility that the Government will present a framework, similar to the one for agricultural products, for removing restrictions on water as well?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: The general rules for safety regulations on water are different from those for agricultural products. Each water company makes decisions based on standards provided by the MHLW. In the recent case, for example, they decided that infants should not consume the tap water. Some believe that we should establish a set of rules or standards particularly pertaining to the removal of such restrictions. The MHLW is now considering the matter, including how and through what route the radioactive materials enter the water source. They are also consulting with water companies on an individual and all-inclusive basis as necessary to sort the issue out. At the current time, however, we are not considering implementing uniform standards.

REPORTER: From the materials you have on hand, can you tell us whether there are any products that have passed two verifications and are about to be removed from the restricted list, or whether there are products that have already been cleared and are just about to be removed? Also, if there are no such products, in the earliest case what is your forecast for when such products might appear?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: I do not have any special materials or information at present to be able to make such speculation. The Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters' stance is that, from the perspective of ensuring safety, the validity of these rules and standards must be confirmed by NISA and the NSC before getting the green light. In regards to practical application, the MHLW and other related ministries will be advancing such considerations with a strong emphasis on safety.

REPORTER: This question is regarding water at the nuclear power plant. You mentioned earlier that water has been collecting in the buildings of Unit 5 and Unit 6. First, why is that happening? Second, what is the relationship between this water and the water being discharged into the ocean?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: TEPCO is giving a press conference as we speak and I think that they will report on these details. However, there is groundwater welling up near Unit 5 and Unit 6 and water is beginning to collect inside of the turbine building as a result. What happened to the other units was that water from the tsunami came into contact with the units, causing the power generator and other equipment to stop functioning properly, and thus leading to the accident. Therefore, it is dangerous if water collects in the turbine building, and so it must be discharged. I approved that discharge as an emergency measure in order to avoid problems like this.

REPORTER: The JMA forecasted downgrades to certain radioactive materials. However, these downgrades were made for a 100-kilometer area, which cannot be deemed a very good reference for Japanese people. In the future, is the Government planning to conduct separate forecasts on the spread of radiation, such as by marking off smaller area units or by increasing the categories with the highest amount of radioactive materials or the most different types?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: That is exactly what the SPEEDI mechanism is for. This has been reported on in depth already by the NSC and NISA, but the problem now is that the level of radiation emitted from the nuclear power plant cannot be determined. Also, we are working to confirm based on various circumstances at what levels radiation is being emitted at the current moment as well as whether current levels are greatly lower compared to when these were at their highest. We have a computer system to conduct simulations on the degree of impact that certain levels of radiation would have on different regions, and I have received a report that the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and the NSC are working hard to figure out how to use information about how much radiation has been emitted, which is the base for such a simulation, while keeping in mind the need for accuracy. However, as I mentioned this morning, or perhaps yesterday, we are asking relevant authorities if they can provide a recent sampling data analysis for each risk concern and SPEEDI analyses on the impacts resulting from meteorological conditions and topography, all in a combined and organized manner, when conducting various considerations on such matters as evacuation areas.

REPORTER: This question is in relation to evacuation areas. According to today's survey by the national government, the total radiation amount over an 11-day period starting from March 23 in Namie Town, Fukushima Prefecture surpassed 10mSv. Since measurements were not taken immediately following the earthquake, the actual amount accumulated until present is likely to be over double that. 10mSv is a rough criterion for requiring “indoor evacuation,” yet I understand that the area where this measurement was taken is not an evacuation area. Does the Government intend to issue any kind of orders to the prefectural or municipal government?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: As I have been reporting for the past several days, we are receiving various new data and based on that data a scientific, expert analysis is being expedited on what to do about the evacuation area. We are pushing that issue and I have already reported that there is a possibility that a certain decision based on that analysis may be made. However, at the current moment, a significant amount of radiation is not being discharged from the nuclear power plant and radiation levels have been decreasing in all areas. After conducting a solid scientific verification of the situation, I will request an evacuation or other measures based on the verification if necessary. The current circumstances do not force us to make decisions by the minute or second, and we are already inflicting a significant impact and burden on people that have evacuated. On the other hand, however, we must do everything we can to ensure safety. Various experts are now making detailed considerations and, as I mentioned several times before, once the results of those considerations come to order we may make a decision based on them.

REPORTER: This question pertains to the JMA issue. Regarding the results that the JMA provided the IAEA, what specifically is this information used for, what is its significance, and what do you think of these results now that they have been gathered? Moreover, the results were published in such places as on Germany's national meteorological agency's website. What do you think that information is being used for? Also, conversely, do you think it will mislead people? What are your thoughts on the matter?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: Speaking based on my report from the JMA, the IAEA provides information in the form of an international estimate to all countries regarding the level of possibility that they will be impacted. Of course it is vital to have information on, for instance, whether substances in a certain location are to spread throughout the region, and if they are going to spread, to what degree they will attenuate in time, based on weather conditions, wind direction, and other factors. The JMA is providing the IAEA with this information. I have also received a report that in addition to the JMA, the IAEA has requested the same information from several neighboring countries. They use this information, for example, to judge what effects and what substances will have in a certain country.

REPORTER: This question is in regards to the previously mentioned information on the spread of radiation provided by SPEEDI. By last week, some forecast was made on the amount of emissions and those results were made public. Is the information from SPEEDI, including that forecast, received by the IAEA?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: Even if we do not directly report the results to the IAEA, the results of SPEEDI have been made public, and of course that that information has been received by the IAEA on both practical and factual levels.

REPORTER: Regarding the crime rate in the evacuation zone, on what grounds are you claiming that the crime rate is not particularly on the rise? Has the number of perceived cases of crime been reported? Has anyone confirmed it with their eyes? What is your reasoning?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: Naturally, there is no one within the 20km zone in principle. But every day, the members of the police and the SDF, taking all possible safety precautions wearing protective gear and carrying a dosimeter, enter the zone and conduct a variety of activities, including crime prevention and crisis management activities. From the perspective of preventing crime, I believe it would not be wise for me to necessarily say exactly how many of them there are. Throughout their series of activities, there have been absolutely no observations of, how can I say, particularly suspicious people entering the area or people undertaking some sort of large-scale crime. Yes, these are observations made from outside the buildings, but I understand no particularly large crimes have occurred and that the judgment is based on the series of adequate crime prevention patrols.

REPORTER: I'm sorry to go back to an earlier topic, but I have a question about the moves not to review the provisional safety limits [regarding consumption of radioactive substances in farm and marine products] and the MHLW's decision. According to the materials of the advisory panel to the MHLW, the Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters expressed its outlook to “maintain” the limits for food products on April 1. Can you confirm if this is true? And if so, can you tell us why you did not announce this on April 1?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: The provisional safety limits are a matter that is ultimately overseen by the MHLW. Going in order, first the Food Safety Commission considered the limits, and its findings were notified to the Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters. Then, the Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters shared the information with the Nuclear Safety Commission and asked for their judgment regarding whether the opinion of the Food Safety Commission was appropriate from a nuclear perspective. The Nuclear Safety Commission reported that it believes the Food Safety Commission's judgment was appropriate. Since the MHLW makes the final decision, the opinions of the Food Safety Commission and the Nuclear Safety Commission were conveyed or notified to the MHLW. As for the MHLW, they are further required to hear the opinions of its advisory panel on pharmaceutical and food products. Therefore, a decision is made based on the opinions of each of the three relevant committees. Since we were still in the middle of the decision-making process, if the MHLW's advisory panel had made a contrary judgment, the end-result would have been different. This is why the Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters did not disclose the interim situation.

REPORTER: I understand that it is the Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters that is the ultimate, highest-level decision-making body. I do not really understand why the MHLW makes the final decision.

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: There are presiding laws in the world of food safety legislation. Even if a nuclear disaster occurs, the presiding laws which ensure safety are upheld. Since there are matters which cannot be addressed by these presiding laws, with regards to these matters, instructions are given based on the decisions of the Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters, whose chair has an extensive knowledge on this matter. Otherwise, in principle, the individual laws are upheld. Regarding those matters which are effectively served by the laws, the authorities in charge will carry out their responsibilities. Where there are gaps in the laws, the Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters will directly take over. Understandably, since the individual laws alone are insufficient for ensuring safety on matters related to nuclear power, the Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters naturally coordinates with relevant agencies, including the Nuclear Safety Commission, in drawing on various knowledge and doing the overall coordination. These are the arrangements we have.

REPORTER: I have a question about the SPEEDI estimation results. In the first place, I think the estimation results were only announced once since the incident. Are there no plans to disclose them in the future? I would also like to find out something basic after that one time, have current estimates been taken?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: Although I believe this is a question for the NSC, the point of having the reports come to me is that, in the end, the quantity of radioactive materials in the atmosphere after the incident is used to do back calculations to figure out how and when the radioactive substances were discharged from the plant, in consideration of climate conditions and other factors. Based on those estimation results, the impact of the radioactive releases is then estimated for each region based on its climate, and that is then mapped out. With regard to the figures for the quantity of radioactive substances in the air after the incident, we have received several figures after that the first estimation. Basically, based on those figures, there have been no significant changes for the quantity of radioactive substances that are thought to have been released from the nuclear power plant. As such, conversely, we think it means that only one simulation result as well, based on that one simulation. For now, with regard to the quantity of accumulated radioactivity in each region as a result of the incident and for those who have been there since the incident, the government is now putting in requests to carry out such estimates and analyses based on a variety of data; these are important in order for the government to implement safety measures. Instructions have also been given for the steps to be taken in thoroughly verifying results to compare the results of these estimates and analyses against the SPEEDI estimates, in order to find out the extent to which the SPEEDI estimates match the actual figures. In that sense, we hope to make use of whatever parts we can. No matter whether or not we can do that, we will continue to give directions for the comparison of estimates against actual measurements.

REPORTER: Mr. Sadakazu Tanigaki, President of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), acknowledged that due to the impact of the earthquake, the party has had to reconsider the plan to make demands on the Kan administration for an early dissolution of the House of Representatives and snap elections. I believe President Tanigaki has also begun to view the grand coalition with greater flexibility, and is keeping the option open. What are your thoughts on his attitude toward these issues? In addition, does the Kan administration plan to make a renewed call for the formation of a grand coalition?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: As I have consistently mentioned, immediately after the earthquake struck, all the opposition parties have expressed that they will cooperate fully with the government in dealing with the crisis, and they have also repeatedly provided the government with a variety of valuable advice and information. Hereon, we would be very grateful if the opposition parties could keep up this stance and continue to operate in this manner, and it is our intention to handle the crisis to the best of our effort while taking all their views into consideration.

REPORTER: What about requests to join the Cabinet?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: As I have just mentioned, the government wishes to focus on handling the crisis as one united nation, with the cooperation of all the opposition parties, and taking into consideration all the information and advice we have received from members of the opposition. With regard to the specifics, and particularly the political situation, I believe that the Prime Minister and those in the appropriate positions will make the necessary technical judgments.

REPORTER: On a separate note, what is the government's stance with regard to future communication between the Prime Minister and the people? The so-called “doorstepping interviews” (short, ad-hoc “hanging on” interviews) of the Prime Minister are making a gradual disappearance. What are your thoughts on the form that these interviews will take in future?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: I believe I have answered a similar question this morning, and my answer remains the same.