Press Conference by the Chief Cabinet Secretary

JAPANESE

Opening Statement by Chief Cabinet Secretary Edano

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: I have just one item to report, on the lifting of shipping restrictions. Today, based on Article 20 Paragraph 3 of the Act on Special Measures Concerning Nuclear Emergency Preparedness, we decided to lift shipping restrictions on a portion of the raw milk produced in Kawamata Town and Minamisoma City in Fukushima Prefecture. We have given instructions on this decision to the Governor of the Prefecture. For details, please inquire at the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) or the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF). Shipping restrictions have now been lifted off of raw milk with the exception of that produced in the evacuation zones, emergency evacuation preparation zones or planned evacuation zones.

Q&As

REPORTER: I found the exchange with Ms. Yuko Mori at today's meeting of the Budget Committee of the House of Councillors to be quite interesting. She stated that, "Given Tokyo Electric Power Company's (TEPCO) experience with loss of backup power supplies, the fact that they did not have countermeasures for this incident prepared suggests that this is in fact a man-made disaster." How do you take this comment?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: I think it is fairly hard to define what exactly a "man-made disaster" is. I also think that this will ultimately be decided in court, and so it is difficult for me to make a direct comment on the issue. I will say that as far as compensation for those affected and harmed by this disaster, TEPCO will primarily cover the fiscal burden for this, and the Government is responsible for making sure that compensation is thoroughly paid out. I believe that this has already been made clear.

REPORTER: As a follow up to that, I know that you are a lawyer by training - is this a problem which warrants a criminal investigation?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: I naturally have my own perspective about this as a member of the Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters. However, I think we will have to wait for the results of an examination before we identify the causes for this accident and say whether any portion of the events that followed the incident were acts that warrant a criminal investigation.

REPORTER: Back to the topic of Ms. Yuko Mori - in today's question and answer session at the Diet, she requested that the setting of the upper radiation limit, provisional standard value at 20mSv for children, be they elementary schools or preschool students, be reconsidered. Ms. Mori is a member of the ruling party of course, and I would like to ask what you think about a member of the ruling party expressing such an opinion.

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: I repeated this a number of times the other day, but we have not instructed that there be a limit of 20mSv. I think that as a standard or guideline, it has been decided that the average radiation levels (limit) in the ground level of schoolyards in the affected area is 3.8µSv/hour. The figure of 20mSv per year is the level of accumulated radiation exposure a person would receive with the assumption that they spend 8 hours outside and 16 hours indoors in someplace like Iitate Village. The areas that have become an issue recently are ones that differ from Iitate Village - there are areas within the affected region that are like Iitate Village and those that differ from it, but the situation is that those that differ actually have much lower radiation levels. For example, if we actually investigate the areas now in question in detail, even looking at asphalted areas outdoors in the school yard, the radiation levels are about half that of Iitate Village. We also investigated the radiation in school buildings in these areas. We found them to be one-tenth as high as other areas. For areas that have surpassed the set standard, we have asked that children spend no more than one hour outdoors. In other words, the major premise of all of this is that we are not currently in a situation where a child might accumulate 20mSv of exposure in a year. Furthermore, we will give teachers dosimeters to measure actual radiation levels to ensure that they fully understand the situation. In addition, we are now addressing this problem from the perspective of safety, with the major premise that as long as the situation at the power station does not take a turn for the worse, we can expect that the levels of radiation will continue to fall as they have recently and that in total we will definitely not see levels of 20mSv of accumulated radiation per year. I think that we must make greater efforts on this as it seems that it either has not been explained well enough or that our explanations have not been well understood. I would like everyone to understand that we do not at all intend to allow radiation exposure level of 20mSv nor expect it to actually hit such a high level. I think one of the Cabinet's advisors, Prof. Toshiso Kosako, has made a number of comments related to this. He seems to be saying that his opinion that a more rigorous standard needs to be set for schoolyards has not been not accepted. However, we received the suggestion from him on March 28 that the standards for the acceptable level of iodine in milk, including for babies, or water and other beverages, should be set at 3,000Bq. Mr. Kosako stated that this would be a sufficient value. The Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC) disagreed, stating that a lower value, 300Bq, should be set for milk for infants. So we have received both proposals that values should be set higher and set lower. The NSC made the comprehensive decision that lower values should be adopted. Many opinions on this were offered by other experts as well. I want everyone to understand that we are prioritizing safety in the decisions we make.

REPORTER: I think that the premise of all of this is that 20mSv of radiation level will be accumulated per year if levels are at 3.8µSv/hour. I think the issue is that this value of 20mSv is four times higher than the standard used for the controlled radiation areas, which is 5mSv/year. So I think this is a rather high value, but what is your opinion on this?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: That is why we have had to make such a difficult request of those living in places like Iitate Village where it seems that the radiation exposure level is likely to surpass 20mSv per year. It is why we have marked the area as a Planned Evacuation Zone and asked people to move. We have asked that those pregnant or with young children leave first if they can. Our standard is again based on the idea that a person will stay outside for 8 hours a day. I don't think we will see such levels actually reached, but we are nevertheless requesting evacuation from those areas where it seems like this level may possibly be reached. In addition, some of the schoolyards we have issued instructions to recently are located in areas with much lower radiation levels than the places I am talking about here, so I don't want everyone to think that we just drew a line signaling where is good and where is bad based on where the accumulated radiation levels will reach 20mSv/year.

REPORTER: Prof. Kosako recommended standards be set at 3,000Bq?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: Prof. Kosako? Yes. For radiation in drinking water or milk, he proposed that the standard value of 3,000Bq/kg would be appropriate. In the end, the NSC set the standard to 300Bq/kg, one-tenth of his proposal. But we are still in the process of making a final decision on this.

REPORTER: Related to that, yesterday MHLW announced the results of tests of the breast milk of women living in Tokyo or four prefectures, including Fukushima and Ibaraki. Slightly higher levels of radiation substance were found in the breast milk of seven women in the study. Is the Government considering setting a standard level for permissible radiation in breast milk? If you aren't, I wonder if you won't be using the same value that has been established for milk and milk products?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: Even in cases in which a parent uses formula to make milk for their child, they need to use heated water to dissolve the milk before the child can consume it. We are thus basically applying the same safety standards to all milk. I think that we need to give certain consideration to this issue as the radiation will pass through the mother's body, but basically, levels of radiation are really so low that they will not affect children. Experts tell us that the bigger problem here is actually that this issue causes undue stress onto mothers.

REPORTER: Related to the issue of whether the standard for iodine in milk should be 3,000Bq or 300Bq, it seems that some countries of Europe and the Americas set their standards for this to considerably lower values such as 1Bq or 10Bq. I think that there must have actually been some debate on whether 300Bq is really appropriate either, and I am sure that there is much variety among the opinions of experts on this. What do you think about the value chosen?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: I ask that you please ultimately hear the opinion of experts on this directly. Not being an expert myself I risk explaining this incorrectly, and I certainly don't want to invite misunderstanding. That said, I have received the explanation that the ranges and specific values for each standard are being set to leave a lot of room for safety. Part of this is that of course, it is safer to receive less exposure to radiation than more. The standards were set to ensure exposure less than would be actually required to simply ensure safety.

REPORTER: Concerning the point made by Prof. Kosako about whether the safety standard should be 300Bq or 3,000Bq, compared to what he proposed for schoolyards, do you see any consistencies in his arguments, or do you feel they are inconsistent?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: These are expert opinions made by a specialist, which have also been discussed and assessed as proposals or reference points at various levels by other experts, including those on Safety Commissions. As I am no expert in this matter, I think I should refrain from commenting on his opinions.

REPORTER: Did Prof. Kosako make this proposal directly to the Safety Commissions or through the Prime Minister's Office?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: The proposal concerning the safety standards for food and drinking water was submitted to the Prime Minister and the Chairman of the Food Safety Commission of the Cabinet Office. Copies of the proposal were also submitted to me and Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Fukuyama.

REPORTER: You said a while ago that examination is needed to determine whether or not the latest nuclear incident should warrant a criminal investigation, and you repeatedly said at a meeting of the Budget Committee of the Diet today that the incident will be examined at the third-party committee. Will this committee be considering the criminal nature of this matter as well?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: To speak exactly, examinations must be conducted on the incident in a general sense. As a result of such examinations, and only after such examinations, what you have suggested may come to the surface. But we are not bringing together an examination committee for that purpose.

REPORTER: Returning to the topic of the soil in schoolyards, Koriyama City has independently removed soil, but is having trouble finding a place to dispose of it. As such there have been voices from local municipalities that the national government should establish a certain standard with regard to the disposal of soil. Does the Government acknowledge the need to remove the soil from schoolyards? If so, does it intend to stipulate standards concerning the disposal of soil and other waste?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: First, when it comes to the necessity, there is no need to remove the soil as long as the latest guideline presented by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) is observed. I think the municipalities that took steps to remove the soil did so as an additional safety measure. On the other hand, the soil must be treated as radioactive waste produced outside the nuclear power station. How should it be disposed of and under what framework? Honestly speaking, this is not an easy question to answer right now. If nowhere can be found that will accept the waste then it cannot be disposed of. This will be problematic moving forward - at least as far as radioactive waste, including rubble, within the 20km zone is concerned. When the situation at the nuclear power station is brought under control to a certain extent, we will also be considering the improvement of the soil in farmlands. Toward this goal, although it may take some time, I believe that the national government must advance consideration on how to deal with radioactive waste produced outside the nuclear power station.

REPORTER: I have heard that one female employee working at Fukushima Daiichi Power Station was exposed to radiation exposure level above the limit stipulated by the Government. Please tell us what the Government has confirmed about that woman's state of health, as well as what your plans are for future safety measures.

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: For women, much lower safety limits are applied in light of the possibility of pregnancy. After this incident, especially after March 23, TEPCO has removed female employees from work around the station. This continues to be the case. We haven't received any reports about the particular health of the woman in question. If not pregnant, woman could be subjected to the same limits as men in principle, but since the matter concerns a person's privacy, I think I should not comment beyond that point.

REPORTER: Concerning the compensation to be paid by TEPCO, please tell us the current progress of coordination with regard to such things as organizational structure.

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: TEPCO is directly handling the issue of compensation, and I believe they pay compensation sequentially, in line with the first-round guideline that has been proposed.