Press Conference by the Chief Cabinet Secretary

JAPANESE

Opening Statement by Chief Cabinet Secretary Edano

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: I have one item to report. This afternoon the second meeting of the Working Team for Measures to Ensure Safety and Public Security in Disaster-affected Areas was held. At this meeting a number of countermeasures were decided to ensure safety and public security in disaster-affected areas. It was decided that the relevant ministries concerned will work closely together to advance a number of measures in an expedited manner, including the prevention of and crackdown on crimes in disaster-affected areas and opportunistic crimes arising from the disaster, the provision of consultation services in evacuation centers on anti-crime measures, and efforts to address problems of baseless rumors. A press briefing on the content of this meeting will be held later by the secretariat. Please inquire about the details of the meeting in that briefing.

Q&As

REPORTER: I asked a question this morning about the raising of the annual limit for exposure to radiation. You indicated that this was a measure for ensuring safety from a different perspective. I did not quite understand your explanation on the various perspectives on the risk of exposure to radiation.

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: I think that this morning my answer did not correspond very well to your question. Rather than raising the limit for exposure to radiation, the current level for evacuation is set at exposure in excess of 50mSv, and the level for shelter indoors is for locations that could receive in excess of 10mSv. These are the standards for evacuation in an emergency when there is a concern that large amounts of radioactive materials could suddenly be released in a short time, with the standard being that evacuation is to be implemented in locations that are expected to receive exposure in excess of 50mSv. The figure of 20mSv came about in the course of discussions on the issue that although the standard for evacuation is set at 50mSv for short-term exposure to large volumes of radioactive materials, with regard to the question of ensuring safety in terms of accumulated exposure to radiation over the long-term in the areas affected, it would be necessary to consider a figure lower than 50mSv. This is the background to the discussion on the figure of 20mSv that is being considered and is what I explained this morning. The figure of 1mSv is the standard set for exposure under normal operating procedures at nuclear power plants and in other locations. This gives very strong consideration to safety, with the aim being to set a high benchmark of 1mSv exposure, thus fully ensuring safety. That is the background to the various figures. With regard to the potential impact on the health of people who are actually living in those areas and what limits can be drawn that can robustly ensure safety, the latest findings of international organizations have been provided and experts are working towards a final decision on the safety figures.

REPORTER: If a level of 1mSv is the level that has been announced to the public as being safe, do you not think that by raising this limit, the public's confidence in the credibility of safety measures, which you have mentioned on many occasions, would be shaken?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: With regard to this point, if there is to be a change in the stipulated limit, it would be counterintuitive to call it 'raising the limit.' This is because the current limit that has been announced for evacuation is areas where there is a possibility of exposure to in excess of 50mSv. What is currently being discussed is whether to change the limit to 20mSv in locations where there is a possibility of accumulated exposure to radiation. So in that sense the limit is not being raised, but is actually being lowered. Separately from the current situation, there is an existing standard of 1mSv for ensuring safety around nuclear power plants under normal operations, which is an extremely stringent benchmark. In a situation in which these various standards and figures exist we must determine which of these are the safest, given the fact that the people who live in the affected areas have a strong wish to return to their homes and livelihoods. We must therefore ensure safety for the residents and with the advice of experts, considerations are being given on what levels may be set that duly ensure safety.

REPORTER: I have a question about the release of contaminated water. Fishery operators from prefectures neighboring the nuclear power plant have raised vociferous objections to the measure. I would like to ask about the decision-making process that led to this measure. In your press conference on the afternoon of April 4, you stated that it was an unavoidable measure, which was essential to implement, based on a report from Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) and the advice of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA). Was the Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters not involved in the decision to release the contaminated water? Was it a measure that TEPCO could decide alone?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: Based on a request from TEPCO, this decision was considered by NISA, by the government and also by the Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC). The Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters is actually comprised of members of these organizations and third-party experts, and it was on the basis of expert opinions from these bodies that the government approved the measure.

REPORTER: At what stage did TEPCO first approach the government and notify that it was considering such a measure?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: This measure was first discussed by TEPCO and NISA, which is part of the government organization. For further details please inquire to NISA. I received a report myself on the deliberations of NISA and the NSC just a short time prior to announcing it in my press conference, in which the NSC indicated its approval of the decision. Approval was therefore given based on the perspective that it was an unavoidable measure from a perspective of ensuring a relative degree of safety.

REPORTER: Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Michihiko Kano has stated that it is regrettable that he received no word about this measure until hearing about it in your press conference. From this we can imply that Minister Kano received no prior notice. Was the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism Akihiro Ohata, who is responsible for maritime policies, contacted in advance?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: I think that you should confirm this with Minister Ohata himself. However, if the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries received no prior notice, I would assume that the minister responsible for maritime policies also did not receive such notice.

REPORTER: How do you view the response of TEPCO and NISA with regard to this point about prior notice?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: This is not just a matter relating to TEPCO and NISA. The government, including myself, should have paid closer attention to ensuring that communication and consultation was conducted with all related organizations.

REPORTER: In relation to the first question about exposure to radiation, is it correct to say that the government is in fact not raising the limit of annual exposure to radiation from 1mSv to 20mSv?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: First of all, this is a measure that has not yet been decided. In the morning press conference I may not have answered your questions directly, so I would like to make myself clear. In locations where there is a possibility of exposure reaching 50mSv, evacuation is being advised, and this applies to the 20km radius around the power plant, where people have already evacuated. This figure of 50mSv is the limit for short-term exposure to large volumes of radioactive materials. The residents in this 20km zone are therefore being evacuated, causing them great inconvenience, because that area has the potential to be exposed to radiation in excess of 50mSv. As there is a very low possibility of exposure to large volumes of radioactive materials in excess of 50mSv in a short time, another issue of great concern is how to ensure the safety of people in areas where radiation levels are gradually rising as radioactive materials accumulate. In this situation, questions are being raised about whether the same safety standard of 50mSv, which applies to short-term exposure to large volumes of radioactive materials, is appropriate and applicable in a cumulative context. Some people take a different view that this standard is not appropriate in this context. As there are a number of new views and knowledge about this situation, including from international organizations, experts are currently considering what standards should apply in the case of cumulative exposure and whether residents should, for example, evacuate.

REPORTER: If that is the case, in a previous press conference you stated that the standards for evacuation advisories would be reviewed. Is this review process considering the expansion of the scope of evacuations if cumulative exposure of 20mSv is exceeded?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: First of all, no concrete figures have been determined. At the moment we are receiving opinions from experts at NISA and the NSC, as well as from other nuclear and medical-related organizations and these people are considering the technical aspects of ensuring safety. At the current stage it cannot be definitely said what the final decision on a numeric limit will be. However, discussions are ongoing towards making such a decision and it is also the case that the figure of 20mSv has arisen in these discussions. That's why I touched upon that figure as my answer to your question this morning.

REPORTER: With regard to the safety of marine produce, I believe that fishing ports are cooperating with safety measures and results of various tests are now being submitted. However, some consumer safety bodies are calling on the government to give clearer instructions and provide statistics under a comprehensive system that would help to confirm that the products circulating in the markets are all safe. Yesterday you stated that monitoring would be strengthened. In specific terms what kind of structures are you considering? Will they be the same as those currently in place or will the government be introducing other new structures also?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: With regard to the sampling points in the ocean, these have been sequentially expanded from the stage at which the contaminated water was released. Yesterday two further sampling points were established and these measures are being implemented by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). In addition, the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC) of MEXT has introduced monitoring buoys as a means of studying and understanding in detail the ocean currents in the vicinity of the plant. These buoys will be used to develop oceanic dispersion and dilution forecasts. These measures are not limited to marine produce alone. The government is making every effort to maximize the utilization of analytical capacity for both agricultural and marine produce, using measurements obtained as a means of confirming safety.

REPORTER: With regard to checks of marine products, does the government intend to continue with the current practice, where fishery associations catch the fish and bring them on board vessels? Are you not planning to go beyond such a system?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and MEXT are in consultation as they work to consider what would be the most effective way of monitoring and methods of ensuring safety.

REPORTER: I would like to ask about a review of the evacuation zones. Iitate Village in Fukushima Prefecture decided to let women and infants wishing to leave evacuate independently from the Government's instructions on evacuation. How does the government feel about independent decisions on evacuation by this and other such towns and villages? Is it possible that a future government review on evacuation zones will dictate instructions for evacuation based on certain ages or whether or not a woman is pregnant?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: First of all, as I responded earlier, this is not a case in which there will be a sudden massive release of radioactive materials. Over the long term, a certain level of radioactive material will escape. As this accumulates, we must conclude that there is a potential for effects on human health. The situation is developing as we speak, so our response regarding this is to send in dedicated experts to conduct investigation and analyses. Based on the opinions of these experts, and on the premise that we are not necessarily in the situation where people must leave in one or two days, we are now analyzing things as carefully as possible. However, I understand that this must be a great concern to people living in the regions where there is this risk. The fact that some local governments made felt they had to make such judgments as independent municipal decisions is terrible, and in that sense I am truly sorry. The Government, including NISA and the NSC will act as quickly as it can in bringing together the collective wisdom from the domestic experts, but in so doing I would like to present a clear stance, and clear instructions that what kind of trouble and inconvenience we may cause and state the safety in clear terms. Whether we will make a distinction based on factors such as age or not, is currently under consideration by experts, but it is not the case that we have set any kind of specific direction yet. I hope to reach a conclusion as soon as possible, including whether such distinctions are necessary.

REPORTER: Regarding these municipalities, does the Government plan to provide them with some kind of support?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: We have already commenced support, at an early stage, for cases involving people in indoor evacuation zones who wish to be evacuated. This work has focused, in particular, on individuals such as hospital patients. Naturally, in terms of support for towns and villages in the surrounding areas, if the government deems it necessary to accept people who are evacuated under the aforementioned independent decisions, and to provide them with livelihood support, then we would like to consult with those villages, and take the appropriate action.

REPORTER: I would like to confirm about what reflections you have on an issue you spoke about earlier. I feel that the Government has been somewhat late in noting the sense of crisis over the recent contamination of seawater. If for example, observation buoys had been introduced, to predict dispersion and dilution beforehand, then from the outset, when the seawater was dumped in the ocean, it would have been possible to predict that it would not head toward South Korea, or toward the Sea of Japan, or that it would not reach South Korea. If such measures had been taken in advance, before the release of the water into the sea, then I have a feeling that there would have been none of the recent troubles. Do you have no regrets in this regard?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: We decided yesterday to set out observation buoys, and we have started to take action accordingly. Certainly, it was around the time the decision was made to release the water into the sea, that this was taking place. If I have any regrets they are about timing. If we could have realized the possible need for this operation at an early stage, such as when TEPCO and NISA began cooperating on this issue, we could have made preparations or predictions within relevant Government organizations, made a judgment on this issue and responded quicker given more in-depth explanation. I regret that we did not address this need from a stage before the decision on it was made. It is because of the sense of crisis relating to the contamination of seawater, or more importantly, the increasing sense of crisis, I think, that when it became necessary to do something as soon as possible like we did yesterday, that the decision was made to do everything. Comparing the former situation in which we did not know where the water was leaking from, to the recent decision to release it ourselves, the water released this time was 270,000 times less radioactive than the water that was leaking out before. Based on the extreme seriousness and urgency of the situation, we had to stop the leaking, and we had to make sure that it did not continue over the long-term. The water, which had developed into pools, had to be safely stored somewhere, and not allowed to continue to flow into the sea. The situation was growing in importance, growing in urgency. Even if the leaking water was temporarily halted like this morning, and if the location of the leak was stopped, if we had not released water it would mean that, the water gathering in various other places would eventually overflow and end up in the sea. If that happened, we would start to fall behind in confusion, and be forced to work to frantically try to stop the water. In that regard, in order to stop such a situation from coming to pass, we had to hurry and secure a place to that could hold the highly irradiated water in the plant, which is 270,000 times more radioactive than the water we released this time. There was a serious sense of crisis about the potential that highly contaminated water would continue to leak out. So if anything, I only regret that we neglected to follow more careful procedures when we did this.

REPORTER: Regarding the independent judgment on evacuating made by local governments, will those who participate in evacuations like this, ones without a legal basis, still be eligible to receive compensation in the same way that those who were instructed by the Government to evacuate are?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: I think that naturally, if it is a step that must be taken in response to the incident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant, such as the Government ordered evacuation or the order or to stay indoors, then of course compensation will be given. In addition, there are places, for instance, like Iitate Village, which have made the decision to evacuate out of the area. These areas have also been harmed by the incident at the nuclear power plants. I think that they will naturally be eligible for compensation from TEPCO and support from the Government.

REPORTER: I would like to ask about power supply and demand over the summer. In his press conference yesterday, Minister of Economy, Trade, and Industry Kaieda stated that the Government was considering invoking an order regarding power conservation. On the other hand, many business groups are considering voluntary power saving measures. I would like to know if the Government has anything concrete that it would like to ask of business. I would appreciate it if you could share some concrete examples of power conservation.

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: As I stated yesterday, the Government primarily wants businesses to voluntarily judge or consult about the situation, and develop innovative power saving plans which have the least possible effect on their operations. We want to prioritize these kinds of measures. Although we must currently request power conservation, this will affect many things, and in particular we want to lessen the effect it may have on industrial economy. I think that the most important thing is for each company or industry to make a judgment about what the most rational or least harmful way of saving power is. This will differ depending on the nature of work, the position of the office, or many other conditions. Rather than stating that we want to support this or that method of power conservation, we would like to just have everyone cooperate with power conservation through whatever means they judge are easiest. This is what we first want to request. I think this is what should primarily happen first.

REPORTER: What is the possibility at the current moment of covering the reactors in concrete? What is the state of discussion or investigation toward doing this?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: We are simultaneously discussing a number of measures to bring the problems at the nuclear power plants to a close. At the same time, we have begun preparations to undertake the measures that we can implement. I don't think that it would be responsible to report to you on what the possibility of doing something is in terms of a number. We are proceeding with preparations for many different measures simultaneously. At some point we will select the quickest and most effective measure.

REPORTER: I would like to confirm something about the incident in which water was released into the sea. You said just now that you received a report about this just before it happened. I believe that preparations for the release of water took place over April 4 and 5, and that if they would have taken place at an earlier time a quicker response could have been made. May I understand that before April 3 no one at the power plant came to you or anyone in the Prime Minister's Office about this idea?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: I cannot speak for everyone in the Prime Minister's Office, but I did not hear about it earlier. Looking back on it now, I do feel that I need to know more about how each related ministry and agency - or rather, since we are talking about the ocean, each country - conducted prior discussions, and about what actions were undertaken during this operation.

REPORTER: My question concerns the NSC. At the beginning of this press conference you talked about the organization's examination into the possibility of raising the annual limit for exposure to radiation. There has been some criticism that since the beginning of this incident the NSC has not shown its presence enough and has not given enough technical support. Do you think the NSC is functioning adequately right now?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: After this incident is to have been concluded to a certain extent, we can begin to have the organization inspected from a third party perspective as to what problem points and what areas for improvement there were. I want to have this done. However, as to the claims that the NSC is not transparent enough - at the start of this incident, as you are aware, the situation changed not just on a daily or hourly basis, but minute-by-minute. At this time the experts of the NSC operated alongside NISA, sharing information and their analyses of that information. They gave us advice for a number of days, about a week, and so actually, I think that it is a matter of course that you didn't see them during this time. After things cooled down a bit, once we began talking about things in terms of hourly or half-day responses, the NSC was set free to an extent. I think it was around this time that they began to release their opinions to the public. As for whether their performance has been 100% perfect, that is something I want to have inspected by a third party after this incident is over. And not just them either, I think the response of the entire Government needs to be inspected.

REPORTER: Relating to the release of water, if it's true that information about this was not provided to Special Advisor to the Prime Minister Hosono, who is currently stationed at the Integrated Headquarters of the Government and TEPCO, then I think that there is a problem with respect to information sharing. What is your opinion on this point?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: I have not yet confirmed that. I think I need to be extra careful about confirming the state of information sharing this time before I say anything.

REPORTER: A while ago it was reported that remuneration for public servants would be cut by 5 percent. Japanese Trade Union Confederation (RENGO) Chairman Nobuaki Koga met with Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) Secretary-General Okada today to discuss this. I have heard that during their conversation Secretary-General Okada completely denied that the Government was discussing this. Is the Government really discussing lowering public servant remuneration by 5 percent? Or is it like Secretary-General Okada said, that there is absolutely nothing to this?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: If anything, I am not currently at a level where I receive reports about this. I don't know. I would like you to enquire with relevant ministries and agencies whether the organizations concerned are discussing this or not.

REPORTER: I would like to ask about the 2+2 meetings of defense and foreign affairs ministers from Japan and the United States. After hearing news about the disaster in Japan, the US-side said that they would be open to scheduling the next meeting at a time appropriate for Japan. Initially this meeting was scheduled for around the beginning of May. Is there the possibility that it will be pushed back to a later date? Furthermore, some are reporting that Tokyo is being considered as the location for this meeting. Could you please tell us about the state of discussion on this?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: Discussion has started between Japan and the United States at the working level as to what should and can be done with the 2+2 meetings based on the disaster. We have not conveyed any political decision to the U.S. yet.

REPORTER: Regarding the Prime Minister's scheduled trip to the United States this summer, originally this trip was planned for the first half of the year. How will the disaster affect the schedule for this?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: This trip as well is something that was planned from before. We haven't made any decision or judgment to change our plans.

REPORTER: Concerning the Reconstruction Design Council, I believe that work is currently underway to establish the council by April 11. What can you tell us about the current progress on the roster of council members or organization of the council?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: My apologies, but you will have to wait to hear about personnel matters until the announcement about this on the day the council is formed.

REPORTER: I would like to ask about the considerations being made for the organizational structure of the council. Considering that the nuclear power plants in Fukushima Prefecture continue to be a problem, I think that the timing of reconstruction for Fukushima Prefecture and the other two prefectures affected by the disaster will be different. Has there been any consideration about establishing multiple separate organizations for the reconstruction process instead of one large congress?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: I think it is true that in the case of Fukushima, because of the effect of the problem at the nuclear power plants, the timing for reconstruction and other matters differ in many ways from other disaster-affected areas. Accordingly, although there are of course parts of Fukushima Prefecture which require reconstruction assistance and have nothing to do with the power plants, in a wider sense, the Reconstruction Design Council to be established this time will need to naturally give a certain amount of consideration to the problem at the power plants and formulate a system for concrete actions to help reconstruct the area around the plants. Detailed discussion is currently underway on how to organize the council for this.

REPORTER: Concerning Japan-US relations, you said some time ago that the conditions of every issue Japan faced before the disaster have changed because of it. Does this apply to the 2+2 Ministers' Meetings, or in wider sense, the Futenma issue?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: I said that it had an affect on every issue. The social conditions which underlie every issue Japan faces have changed greatly since the disaster. This does not mean that everything is now completely different from the way it was before the earthquake. There are many things that are still the same. However, I think it is the case that the social conditions which underlie each issue we face changed greatly.

REPORTER: Are you currently considering reviewing the Futenma issue?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: We are not considering that at the current time.

REPORTER: Regarding the Prime Minister's response to requests for doorstepping interviews, after watching the way he has acted up until now, I am getting the feeling that he has absolutely no plans to respond to our requests. Please tell us as long as you know, will Prime Minister have an intention to resume doorstepping interviews.

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: I have said that I believe it would be preferable for the Prime Minister to directly issue messages to the people of Japan as much as possible to the extent that this does not interfere with his disaster response work.

REPORTER: What does the Prime Minister think about this?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: I don't mean to imply that I have received a response to this statement.

REPORTER: Related to that, when discussing a target for the halting of the spread of nuclear material out of the power plants on a television program on Sunday, Special Advisor to the Prime Minister Hosono stated that the Government's goal was to do this within a few months. This is a fairly grim statement coming from a Special Advisor to the Prime Minister, and I think that either Prime Minister or you are supposed to make this kind of remark but a Special Advisor to the Prime Minister did. Do you think that the weight of Mr. Hosono's statement is realistic? What do you think the truth of this matter is?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: I did not watch the program but I have seen a transcript of what was said. In a press conference the following day, I believe that before us, his statement was made based on his anticipation of how long things would take if the most orthodox option among the many operations was chosen and went smoothly. I think that he also made certain technical explanations within that discussion. But, as a whole, when looking at the whole picture, I wonder if there aren't other choices that might clear this issue up faster. I wonder whether there aren't other safer options which take a longer time to realize. Considering all of these issues, I don't think we are yet in a position to set a concrete goal for when we can bring this problem under control. I have spoken to Mr. Hosono about this and requested that he consider that his statement may have led to some slight misunderstandings.