Press Conference by the Chief Cabinet Secretary

JAPANESE

Opening Statement by Chief Cabinet Secretary Edano

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: I have one announcement to make. Concerning the distribution of relief money, in response to the strong request from the disaster victims and also given that it would be quite difficult to be handled on a prefectural basis, we have decided to establish a committee in charge of the allocation of relief money. Relief money donated from around Japan through the Red Cross, the Central Community Chest of Japan (CCCJ), and other organizations will be allocated to disaster-hit prefectures by the said Committee, which consists of members from the charity organizations and the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW). I believe the MHLW will make an announcement about it later, so please inquire to the Ministry for further details. Concern has been voiced by relevant municipalities and other entities, and people in the disaster-hit areas are currently struggling with everyday life. Therefore, the Government intends to have a decision made on the first-round distribution as soon as possible, so that the goodwill of many people of Japan will reach the disaster victims in a concrete, tangible manner.

Q&As

REPORTER: May I return to the topic touched upon in the morning [press conference]? I suppose analysis has been conducted based on the cumulative radiation in the area around the nuclear power plant. Can I assume that if the radiation levels or risks are determined to be low, the evacuation order will be lifted for some districts?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: On this matter, I believe I shouldn't make any statements of prediction at this moment. It is not the case that safety has been totally ensured with regard to the cumulative radiation or with regard to the nuclear power plant, as I mentioned this morning. I believe our priority is to ensure safety in both aspects, and we are making the final confirmation [with experts] on this. So at this moment, I will not make any statement of prediction.

REPORTER: There are places outside the 30km radius where very high levels of cumulative radiation were recorded. The other day, there was an announcement that the cumulative radiation in Namie Town reached 10.3mSv [over the past 11 days], and this does not include the data before March 23 as no fixed-point observation was made at that time. In the analysis to be done going forward, how will the radiation levels before March 23, which are said to be high, be considered? Does the Government intend to present a certain kind of outlook in reference to other monitoring tests?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: On this, analyses and examinations have been made by experts using the professional methods that they find effective. It is obviously not the case that we have data for all times in all places, such as for those before we were able to obtain the said cumulative data. In consideration of these circumstances, careful extrapolation must be made for anything that can be extrapolated from other data. When doing this, we must be on the safe side as much as possible, so as to not overestimate nor underestimate the cumulative radiation levels. After doing this, we will be making a certain decision. But in order to have material to make a decision, we are asking the experts to conduct analyses.

REPORTER: Can I assume that the evacuation order will be changed depending on this result?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: Of course, we will be making decisions based on this result. We are also asking the experts to consider criteria for issuing evacuation orders and other instructions with regard to the cumulative radiation.

REPORTER: In relation to this, will the evacuation zones be revised based only on the perspective of safety, i.e. the radiation level? Will you also be considering the social factors such as sustainability of daily life?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: We must first of all have technical analyses and assessments made from the safety perspective, and that is what is currently taking place. On that basis, in addition to ensuring safety - as we cannot allow the people to return to the evacuation zone for social reasons unless their safety is ensured - we will see if we should allow social factors to be considered in the decision about evacuation in our final consideration.

REPORTER: On a related question, I'm sure it depends on the analysis results, but can you talk about the possibility of the evacuees returning to their homes for short periods of time? Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry Banri Kaieda had said the visits may be possible around a month from the earthquake. Does the Government intend to allow the evacuees to return from as early as April 11?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: As I also said this morning, since residents have expressed strong wishes to return, it is my hope that they will be able to return, and if so, as early as possible. I imagine the residents are awaiting very eagerly, and therefore, I want to be careful in what I say so that I do not mislead anybody. This is not a matter that can necessarily be decided or given the go-ahead because it's been one month from the earthquake disaster or because of any other such standard. The safety perspective needs to be considered. Alternatively, even if the residents are able to return home, we currently do not so much anticipate having a scenario where all the evacuees will be returning all at once, anytime they wish. This idea of only a few people entering at a time, in order, in phases, is how the SDF and the riot squad are presently doing their work within the 20km radius zone. And they are wearing protective gear, have equipment with them to measure the radiation levels, and are taking all necessary safety precautions. With regards to the residents entering this area, considerations are being made with the assumption that they will naturally need to take similar measures or measures based on them. In that respect, regarding the timing of their brief visits to their homes, unfortunately it cannot necessarily be anticipated at this point in time that this will happen that quickly. We would like to make preparations so that they will be able to return in stages as early as possible. And even if it is only a few people at a time, we hope to start allowing the visits as soon as possible. However, at this time it's hard to say whether I will be able to make that sort of announcement, for example, in a few days' time. Unfortunately, that's where things stand right now.

REPORTER: I'm sorry to ask again, but since the residents have a strong wish to return I would like to ask whether April 11 is then unlikely.

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: Based on the reports which have been made as of now, I believe April 11 at least is probably unlikely. We hope to be able to come up with an outline of some sort of framework at the earliest possible stage, hopefully by a month or so from now. This will of course be one of the key steps. However, I can't say at this stage anything specific, such as what the outline will specify and to what extent and when the visits will start. What I can say is that we are doing everything we can to realize these things as early as possible.

REPORTER: This is in relation to your last comment, regarding the standard overall radiation dose required for an evacuation order. Recently, certain media has been reporting that the upper limit for the radiation dose during ordinary times was to be raised from the 1mSv per year currently in place. On the contrary, the standard for evacuation used in times of nuclear disaster is set at 50mSv. Would it be correct to say that a new standard - set somewhere between these values - for use during disasters that stretch over a long period of time is needed in addition to the 1mSv limit used during ordinary times?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: To put it accurately, the 1mSv standard has been established to ensure that residents living around nuclear power plants do not receive more than 1mSv of radiation over a one-year period when the nuclear power plants are operating during ordinary times. As you just pointed out, as a standard used to ensure safety for residents in the event of an accident, if there is a possibility that residents living around the nuclear power plant will receive a dose of 50mSv or higher of radiation, an evacuation order will be given. However, that standard assumes the case where a large amount of radiation has been emitted over a short period of time. Regarding the case where radiation accumulates over the long-term, considerations are being made on the notion that this standard must be based on a standard different than the 50mSv standard. Before a final conclusion is made, I am unable to forecast whether that standard will be higher or lower.

REPORTER: It was pointed out in the Diet yesterday that the first order to vent following the nuclear power plant accident was made at 1:30 a.m. on the morning after the earthquake, while the order for measures to be taken based on the Reactor Regulation Act was given at 6:50 a.m. of the same morning. Why was an order for measures not made earlier? Is it not necessary to give orders based on laws because private sector companies are not able to take risks themselves?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: Details of this entire timeline of events are best understood by Minister Kaieda, who has been assigned as the minister in charge of these matters. I was directly involved in that process as well, so I have a clear recollection of the timing of events. During discussions that were being carried out on the matter, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) voluntarily said that they were going to begin venting. So, while it is necessary to exercise executive power and order mandatory actions when someone says that they will not do something, TEPCO, in this case, was saying that they were going to do something. That is why Minister Kaieda gave a press conference later that night, and I gave one here about five minutes later. At the press conference, Minister Kaieda sat together with TEPCO and announced that they would start venting. There was thus no need to give a so-called order at that stage in time. However, later there developed a situation where TEPCO indicated that it would be venting, but they failed to commence the venting. At that time, at least, there was no clear explanation provided on why the venting had not started. We issued an order in response to that situation. That was the course of events.

REPORTER: While TEPCO is advancing measures such as the utilization of the mega-float, the amount of contaminated water is increasing by the day. Please again tell us what the Government's position is about the future discharge of contaminated water into the sea.

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: I realize that this problem is causing fisherman and people in the neighboring countries a significant amount of trouble and worry. First and foremost, in order to ensure that water with high concentrations of radioactive material is not leaked out into the sea and other areas, the Government is working together with TEPCO in an integrated manner and to the greatest extent possible. We are collaborating on all possible measures, including the mega-float, in order to contain this contaminated water. However, in order to create a place to collect that water, we are left with no option but to release irradiated water - although relatively low in concentration - into the sea. I have mentioned this several times already, but we are obliged to take these measures so that water with a higher level of radioactivity that will illicit a higher degree of sea water pollution will not be released into the sea. We are allotting every possible effort to ensure that the situation does not go beyond that point. This time we were able to stop the outflow from the pit portion that was cracked; however, we are doing everything that we can to continue confirming whether highly irradiated water is leaking from other areas, and, in the event they are, we are looking for the path of the leak. We are advancing deliberations while paying consideration to various different possibilities.

REPORTER: On the evening of April 6, 6,000 tons of water with a low concentration of radioactive materials was discharged into the sea. What about low concentration water contamination?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: Allow me to reiterate that what is leaking is water containing a high concentration of radioactive materials, and unfortunately that amount is going to increase. We are currently in the middle of injecting new water, so we will not know how much water we have to deal with until we have transferred the water of a relatively high concentration of radioactive substances there now to a new location. However, if there is no place to relocate the highly irradiated water - if there is no place to store the highly irradiated water and the overflowing continues, the impact on the seawater will be significant, tremendously greater than that brought by the water of a relatively low concentration of radioactive materials that is currently released or discharged, and that is why we must prioritize firmly securing a place to store the highly irradiated water. At the same time, we are considering various different possibilities, including the mega-float that you pointed out, for places to secure for storing the contaminated water collected around the crack and other places.

REPORTER: This question pertains to the contaminated water. TEPCO announced that during the 24-hour period until 7:00 a.m. this morning the level of contaminated water from the pit collecting in the trench of Unit 2 had risen by 5cm. At the same time, however, someone from the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) announced that the level had risen once but had already returned to its previous level by this morning. These two announcements contradict with each other. Which of these views does the Government see as being correct?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: I would like to ask you to forward that question back to TEPCO and NISA. I do not have the accurate materials here with me regarding the timeline of events, but I received a report that the water rose once and then returned to its previous level.

REPORTER: Regarding the response at the nuclear power plant, I would like to ask about the current situation of technological cooperation from abroad; for example, automated robots for clearing rubble from Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. You have already stated that these will be provided, but it seems they are not yet in action at the site. Are there any kinds of obstacles to their operation, and if there are, what is the reason for this?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: We have received offers from various countries for the provision of a range of human and material support, not only for the nuclear response, but also for the recent earthquake. Our present intention is to make use of these offers to the greatest degree possible. The situation is the same for the nuclear power plant. However, it is natural that there will be some mismatches between what is provided and the reality at the site. Regarding that point therefore, coordination with local needs is ongoing at the joint headquarters, and through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other departments depending on the situation. As such, I would like inquiries about individual matters to be made there.

REPORTER: On a related point; I believe you met earlier with Minister for Foreign Affairs Matsumoto. To begin with, has the visit to Japan by Secretary of State Clinton been confirmed?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: I have yet to receive a report that it has finally been confirmed. From what is being reported, it seems that consultations are currently underway to sound out the situation. Nothing was said on the subject in my discussion with the Foreign Minister. Rather, we discussed a fairly broad topic: the modality of Japan's diplomacy after the earthquake disaster.

REPORTER: Relating to that, I believe there is cooperation between Japan and the United States over the response to the present nuclear incident. Where will the issue of Japan-U.S. cooperation be in the near future? Please tell us also, what is expected on the Japanese side?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: Since immediately after the earthquake and the nuclear power plant incident, we received an extremely positive and meaningful offer of collaboration, and subsequent tangible cooperation, from the United States. In regard to the case of the nuclear power plant in particular, in political terms, our stance has always been to borrow and make use of any of the various capabilities the United States possesses that will prove useful at the present time. Until the situation comes to the conclusion, there will be no change whatsoever. On that basis, the specific points will be advanced bilaterally in consideration of practical or technical circumstances at the site, including the situation regarding radioactivity and the reactor conditions. From the political perspective, what I believe is of importance as far as the Prime Minister's Office is concerned, is for us to act more thoroughly in ensuring sound communication.

REPORTER: There was a meeting of top officials from the government and the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) this afternoon. To what extent was the scale and schedule for the supplementary budget fixed?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: With regard to this, there were no conclusive outcomes. With regard to the scale of the budget, as I believe I have mentioned previously, we plan to add what we can up to that point in time as far as possible; as for the budget expenditure, we are dealing with the situation on a daily basis in response to the actual needs on the ground. With regard to the items that need to be included in the supplementary budget, we will add in as many items as can be added, right to the breaking point. Therefore, while there have been various reports on what the general scale of the budget would be like, I think that the final scale of the budget would really rest on the overall schedule - when it is going to be submitted - and the drafting process. On top of that, we would also require the cooperation of all members of the opposition parties with respect to the schedule. As we have received word to the general effect that they would cooperate with us on this count, I believe the final decision would be made in consultation with the opposition parties - those in the position of Secretary General and Diet Affairs chief. However, I do think that this should be concluded as quickly as possible.

REPORTER: It is said that the scale of the budget is about 4 trillion yen, based on the requests submitted by the attendees. Are there any possibilities that the budget appropriation would be increased beyond that amount?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: As at this point in time, I think that what you have just mentioned is possible as a direction of the scale of the budget as each Ministry is now tallying up items to be included in the budget request. However, there is also talk about close scrutiny of the items for each Ministry, whereupon I do not deny that the accumulation may further increase in the future. Therefore, there is nothing final and conclusive with regard to these issues.

REPORTER: In relation to that, with respect to the sources of funding for the supplementary budget, Minister of Finance Noda took a negative stance with regard to the issuance of deficit bonds, while he has not made it clear if construction bonds are included in this. What are your thoughts on the funding sources for the supplementary budget?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: With regard to this, it is true at this point that there are several differing opinions within the Diet or within the ruling parties, and we are doing our best to come to a consensus. For myself, regardless of what happens in the future, I think that it is desirable at this stage to first establish the first supplementary budget without depending on government bonds.

REPORTER: What are the reasons behind your opinion that it would be desirable not to depend on deficit-covering government bonds?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: From here on, we will need huge quantities of funding to handle the fallout from this disaster. In the future, I think that we would also have to work hard to produce that funding. In particular, since we are now at the stage where we are drawing up the first supplementary budget, I feel that it is necessary for us to first do everything we can to produce the funds without relying on government bonds.

REPORTER: Would one of the reasons behind this be the fact that the Act on Special Provisions concerning Issuance of Government Bonds for the FY2011 budget (main budget) has not passed the Diet?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: No. Prior to the Diet deliberations, we had already found ourselves in a situation in which massive amounts of funds had to be directed toward future recovery and reconstruction as far as possible. Therefore, the government's stance is to first put in its best efforts without relying on government bonds. However, the government will ensure that the necessary funding is firmly secured. Although the situation is extremely difficult, we will take up that difficult burden; I think that this stance is of great importance. Particularly with regard to the first supplementary budget, items of unmistakable importance such as aid, rescue, and recovery, are clearly stipulated. At the same time, the expenditure for these items will naturally increase. Therefore, for that portion, we must first do our utmost best not to depend on government bonds, and regardless of the various developments that may take place in the future, I believe that it is important for the government to first take this stance.

REPORTER: In relation to that - we are unable to provide funds that we do not have, so if we do not issue government bonds, my question is simple: where are the funds going to come from? We have heard about various measures, such as changing the expenditure items that have been requested for in the existing budget, ceasing provisions for Manifesto items, or terminating state contributions to the basic pension. What are the actual, concrete plans that the government has in mind?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: With regard to that, I hear that the Minister of Finance and party members are conducting detailed reviews on these issues.

REPORTER: Would it be correct to say that it would be possible not to depend on deficit-covering government bonds?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: I have stated that it would be "desirable."