Press Conference by the Chief Cabinet Secretary

JAPANESE

Opening Statement by Chief Cabinet Secretary Edano

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: I have two items to report to you. The first item concerns the introduction of new safety assessments for nuclear power stations. With regard to the confirmation of safety at nuclear power stations in Japan, based on the incident at the TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station and the subsequent situation concerning nuclear power, it has been decided to introduce safety assessments based on new procedures and rules, in addition to the existing structures and mechanisms. These procedures and rules have been finalized by Minister of Economy Trade and Industry Kaieda, Minister for the Restoration from and Prevention of Nuclear Accident Hosono and myself, and are detailed in the document that has been distributed to you today. These procedures and rules have been approved by the Prime Minister, and so I am therefore announcing them today as Government policy.

First of all, the basic premise for the Government policy is that safety has been confirmed in compliance with existing laws and regulations for all nuclear power stations in Japan, and that following the incident at TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, it has also been confirmed that emergency safety measures have been implemented. The measures that have been implemented are already more stringent than thosein the past. However, with regard to the restarting of operations at nuclear power stations following the completion of regularly scheduled checks, there are still many people who remain doubtful about safety on the basis of safety checks implemented by the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) alone, and the Government therefore recognizes that it is difficult to say that sufficient understanding with regard to the situation has been attained from the general public and residents. Given this situation, the Government has decided to implement safety assessments based on new procedures and rules, in addition to existing frameworks for safety confirmation at nuclear power stations. These safety assessments are for the purpose of further improving the safety of nuclear power stations and ensuring the peace of mind and trust with regard to safety by the general public and residents. In addition, items for assessment and the assessment methods are being selected by referring to the stress tests that have been introduced in European countries. In specific terms, based on a request issued by the Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan (NSC) to the Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry on July 6, entitled "Request concerning safety assessments at nuclear power stations," it has been decided to implement the following procedures for assessment. First, with the confirmation of the NSC, items for assessment and an assessment implementation plan will be compiled. Secondly, the nuclear power station operators will implement an assessment in accordance with the assessment items and implementation plan. Thirdly, the results will be confirmed by NISA and will then be further confirmed by NSC, which will check the validity of the results. When the assessment items and assessment implementation plans have been finalized, the relevant information will be disclosed, without waiting from the results of the assessments being attained. Given the shared concept and unified procedures I have just mentioned, it is planned that two types of safety assessments will be implemented. The first is called a "primary assessment." This assessment will be implemented in sequence at nuclear power stations during regularly scheduled checks, which have completed preparations to restart operations. The purpose is to assess the degree of the margin of safety in response to events that surpass the safety design scenarios of important facilities and equipment, etc. At these power stations, measures to confirm safety have been implemented in accordance with current laws and regulations or are scheduled to be implemented. As a means of gaining trust and providing peace of mind with regard to safety, the Government intends to make a decision on whether to restart operations at these power stations on the basis of this additional assessment. The other type of assessment is called a "secondary assessment." This assessment is for the purpose of implementing an overall safety evaluation at all nuclear power stations, including those resumed their operation after the primary assessment. It will be based on the implementation of stress tests in European countries and the status of deliberations in the Investigation and Verification Committee on the Accidents at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station of TEPCO, and the specific timing and content of this assessment will be decided from now. These two types of safety assessments are distinct and comprise separate assessments in their own right. The primary assessment is not positioned as an interim report leading towards the secondary assessment. In order that these assessments lead to improved safety and contribute to gaining the understanding of residents and the general public with regard to safety, the NSC and NISA are working on their details and technical implementation. Finally, with regard to the confirmation of safety at power stations on the restarting of operations following regularly scheduled checks, it has been pointed out that the Government policy and concept were not clear, which led to confusion at the local level where such power stations are located. The Government has reflected deeply on these observations and will provide detailed explanations concerning the purpose and content of the new safety assessments to municipalities and other people in the areas where nuclear power stations are located.

The other item I have to report concerns a question I received in a press conference held on July 7, in which it was pointed out that nighttime crime is rising due to measures to conserve energy. I have confirmed the crime-related situation, which I would like to report to you now. With the exception of a very small minority of cases over a fixed period, it is the case that the number of crimes, including snatch-and-grab crimes, has decreased in comparison to the previous year in Japan as whole, and also within individual areas, including the service areas of Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) and Tohoku Electric Power Company, and metropolitan Tokyo. Claims that crime has risen are therefore unfounded. With regard to the streetlights in the service areas of TEPCO and Tohoku Electric Power Co., the power supplied under contract for these lights has been reduced by 4-5% in comparison to last year, and some streetlights are being switched off. However, the national and local governments that manage public street lighting have given due consideration to such perspectives as crime and traffic safety in certain locations, and have exempted such areas from having to turn off streetlights. There are also many cases in which the governments responsible are engaging in detailed operations concerning decisions whether to switch streetlights on or off, based on the requests and opinions received from residents and road users.

Q&As

REPORTER: I have two questions. The first is, by when does the government intend to implement these primary and secondary assessments? The second question is how long it will take for these two kinds of respective assessments to be completed?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: The various objectives and characteristics of the assessments represent the Government's unified view on this issue, but in specific terms of their content, the assessment items and assessment procedures will be confirmed by the NSC. As these assessments have been devised in response to concerns from the public about whether the confirmation of safety from NISA alone is sufficient, the Government, and by extension the NSC, Cabinet and the three ministers, including myself, who have finalized these assessments, all share the same view that they should be implemented as soon as possible. The NSC is confirming the content of the assessments independently and therefore the Government is not in a position to issue a specific deadline for when a final conclusion should be reached.

REPORTER: I have a point of confirmation. With regard to nuclear power stations that are currently suspended due to regularly scheduled checks, and this is something that applies in particular to Genkai Nuclear Power Station, can we take it that the condition for restarting of operations is only the implementation of the primary assessment? If that is the case, why is it that these power stations are not subject to the secondary assessment?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: If you study the documents that have been distributed to you, I think you will find that the primary assessment is for the purpose of deciding whether or not to restart nuclear power stations where operations are currently suspended for regularly scheduled checks. The secondary assessment is for the purpose of deciding whether to halt or continue operations at power stations that are currently operating. In line with the objectives of both assessments, NISA will compile the necessary standards that would contribute to their implementation, after gaining the confirmation of the independent NSC. This was the way in which the concept for the assessments was finalized.

REPORTER: Considering that the primary assessment is a simplified assessment, I think there will be unease in the local areas close to nuclear power stations about whether it is really safe to restart operations on the basis of such an assessment. How will you respond to such opinions?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: We have not considered whether the primary assessment is more simplified than the secondary assessment. What we have considered is the objective of each assessment, and on that basis NISA will compile a proposal, which will be independently confirmed by the NSC. Thus, the NSC will confirm the required assessments in order to make a decision on whether or not to restart operations.

REPORTER: With regard to the primary assessment, I understand that it is for power stations that are currently suspended for the purpose of regularly scheduled checks. However, will this assessment only apply to the power stations that are currently suspended or will a primary assessment be implemented from now whenever operations at nuclear power stations are halted for the purpose of regularly scheduled checks?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: Basically the latter case of the two you have just mentioned will apply.

REPORTER: Also, with regard to the secondary assessment, you mention that a decision will be made by referring to the implementation of stress testsby European countries. If such tests are implemented in Europe once a year, for example, will the Government be referring to such practices for assessments in Japan?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: This is something that will ultimately be confirmed by the NSC, which is confirmation the status of implementation of various measures in Europe and using them as a source of reference. A proposal for measures to be implemented in Japan will be compiled by NISA, and these measures will be confirmed by the NSC, while taking into account the status of implementation of various measures in Europe and using them as a source of reference.

REPORTER: So are we to understand that in basic terms the secondary assessment will not just be implemented once, but will continue to be implemented regularly from now, for example once every few years, or once every few decades?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: This is not something I can make a statement on at the current point, but based on the status of implementation in Europe and also on the findings of the Investigation and Verification Committee on the Accidents at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station of TEPCO, specific mechanisms and structures will be decided on from technological and safety perspectives.

REPORTER: With regard to these assessments you visited the office of the Prime Minister. What statement did the Prime Minister make?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: He approved the points that I reported to him. Before giving his approve he noted his recognition about how much work had gone into this measure, particularly on the part of Minister Kaieda. I then provided the report, which he duly approved.

REPORTER: I believe that these assessments will cause delays to the restarting of operations at nuclear power stations, and there are some people who are concerned whether or not these delays are acceptable from the perspective of power supply. How do you respond to these people who have such concerns?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: First of all, with regard to power supply and demand for this summer this year, various power utility companies have all made contingency plans for power supply, to prepare for a potential situation in which it is not possible to restart operations at nuclear power stations following the conclusion of regularly scheduled checks. These contingency plans are in a final state of coordination and confirmation at the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI). The primary assessment is designed to assess the margin of safety at designated power stations and the assessment will be confirmed by the NSC. Regardless of power supply and demand outlooks, I believe that we have to appropriately insist that the measures are necessary, when we consider the situation we face, including the incident at TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station.

REPORTER: There are those who suggest that it may be difficult to restart the nuclear power stations during this year, which will also impact power supply during the winter months. During last week you stated that a separate press conference would be held to address power supply and demand issues. Is such a press conference being considered?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: With regard to the power supply and demand status, METI has already been engaged in detailed appraisal and analysis of the situation following the incident in Fukushima and including the current situation. To address broader issues, the National Policy Unit has also been engaging in overall deliberations on energy and environmental issues, taking supply and demand into consideration. The first priority is safety and peace of mind and these two points cannot be forgotten when considering other factors. However, in order to ensure a stable supply of electricity, which is a responsibility of the Government, various relevant ministries and agencies are currently engaged in various measures, and further efforts are being made under existing policies to ensure that sufficient power supply can be secured in the medium term.

REPORTER: When do you anticipate would be the earliest time that the nuclear power stations subject to the primary assessment could be restarted?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: As I have already mentioned, one of the major points of this Government policy this time is that METI and NISA, which is part of METI, are engaging in thorough confirmation of safety, in view of the incident in Fukushima. A further significant point is that under this policy, experts from the NSC, which is an independent body, are involved in this assessment process. Accordingly, one of the basic structures under the policy announced today is that experts from the NSC and NISA will engage in operations, which will ultimately be confirmed by the NSC. Given this structure, it is not possible for the Government to set out deadlines for decisions or demand that a conclusion be issued by a given point in time. This reflects the original purpose of the NSC as a strongly independent body. However, the Government has made a request that efforts are expedited to the maximum extent possible.

REPORTER: I understand the importance of stress tests. However, once again I would like to ask you why the Government couldn't have also discussed the stress tests at the same time that it initially requested the shutdown of the Hamaoka Nuclear Power Station. Why did the Government announce the necessity of stress tests at this particular timing? I cannot help but still have the impression that timing-wise there was this delay. Can you please explain?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: On March 11, the incident unfolded at the TEPCO's Fukushima Nuclear Power Station. Naturally, nearly 100% of the response to the nuclear incident was initially focused on how to prevent the escalation of the incident and how to control the situation. At the same time, bearing in mind this incident, we had to take steps one by one to confirm the safety of nuclear power stations, and furthermore, to assure the people about their safety and gain their trust. This was the situation over the past four months. In this context, we must express our sincere remorse for the fact that this matter has caused significant concern and inconvenience to the people in Saga Prefecture and Genkai Town in particular. We are taking one-step at a time beginning with measures which are feasible. For example, the policy of safety assessments that utilize stress tests as a source of reference announced today was the result of bearing in mind the discussions which took place on this theme at forums of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the G8, and other forums. Or regarding the Genkai Nuclear Power Station, the mayor of Genkai Town and others had fully understood the safety of the nuclear power station and presented a particular policy (to restart the nuclear power station). Despite this being the case, unfortunately sufficient understanding was not necessarily obtained from many people and residents. Under these circumstances, the Government arrived at the safety assessments announced today in order for people to have a greater sense of assurance. As to the criticisms that the Government measures come late, I believe we must accept the criticisms with sincerity in some sense. On the other hand, indeed bearing in mind "3.11," I believe the Government has been at the forefront of the efforts to address the situation one step at a time in the midst of the dramatically changing circumstances.

REPORTER: You had said that the Government would like to "carefully explain" to the municipalities which have nuclear power stations. While I believe the respective municipalities are watching your announcement today indirectly, do you have any intention to set up briefing sessions and so on for the communities? I believe Minister Kaieda said something to this effect last week.

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: I believe the specific procedures need to be consulted moving forward. However, for the relevant stakeholders, I believe we need to provide explanations with quite some specificity and care, beginning with explanations about the major policy which was announced today, followed by explanations about how the NSC will confirm the items, etc. At this stage, nothing has been decided about the procedures.

REPORTER: Can you explain the reasons for separating the assessments into primary and secondary assessments? Also, while the word "stress tests" appears under secondary assessment, it does not appear under primary assessment. What is the difference? You explained that the primary assessments are not "simplified." Can you please explain this point a little more clearly?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: The assessments were designed in view of the objectives of the primary assessment and secondary assessment, respectively, for the NSC to ultimately confirm the appropriateness of operating the nuclear power stations. In the first place, the objectives of the two assessments are different. Also, if you take a look at the document which was distributed today, it states that the overall assessments are based on stress tests as introduced by countries in Europe as a source of reference.

REPORTER: I have another question on the subject of timeframe. First, with regards to the timeframe for designing the primary assessment, I fully understood the response you gave a moment ago. However, do you have any thoughts right now as to whether you are all right with designing the assessment by around the end of the year? Or do you indeed hope the assessment items will be compiled by around the end of the month?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: While we are making a variety of predictions and considerations, one of the key points of these assessments is indeed the third-party confirmation by the NSC. Therefore, at a stage when an evaluation has not yet been made, I believe it goes against the nature of the assessments to, in a broad sense, have those being assessed stipulate by when they want assessments to be conducted or what they want the assessors to do after submitting a proposal. Nevertheless, we hope NISA will present its findings to the NSC as quickly as possible. Furthermore, if, for example, the NSC has any opinions or so forth about that, we hope these opinions will be addressed not in terms of months but in terms of weeks and days. Based on this, I believe it will depend on how the NSC will undertake independent confirmation.

REPORTER: I believe some municipalities, especially Fukui Prefecture, are requesting the establishment of new safety standards even if they are provisional. Are the safety assessments compatible with these safety standards?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: I am not directly aware of what the Governor of Fukui Prefecture and others have said specifically. However, in terms of safety standards, NISA has also identified new measures to prevent a situation like the incident at TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station and have taken steps to confirm that the measures are being taken. In that sense, I believe new de facto and technical standards in response to the Fukushima nuclear power incident have already been identified, and that nuclear power stations are being checked in accordance with these standards. On this basis, the other factor which was kept in mind in coming up with the safety assessments is the fact that the incident has deeply shattered the public's sense of assurance towards nuclear power. While everyone at NISA has been truly working hard especially since the incident to never let such an incident happen again, structurally NISA is part of METI, the organization that promotes nuclear power, and in a broad sense NISA and METI are the same organization. Therefore, it was felt that the involvement of the NSC, an organization which has more third-party type perspectives, was necessary for ensuring the daily safety of individual nuclear power stations, and we stipulated the policy that was announced today. Furthermore, the standards will be based on stress tests implemented in Europe, which are believed to be the most advanced tests available. Therefore, I believe the safety assessments serve their general purpose. As for the specifics, as I mentioned a moment ago, once the specific standards of the primary assessment and secondary assessment are finalized, I believe we will also need to explain these items to the relevant municipalities.

REPORTER: Just to confirm, is it correct to say that the emergency safety measures and additional measures reflect the new de facto standards being presented by the Government?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: At the very least, the responses being carried out at each nuclear power station in accordance with new safety standards presented in response to the accident at TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station are a set of de facto standards that take into account that incident. As there are still people that are not satisfied with these standards, we have established procedures in order to acquire the trust of the general public with regards to safety.

REPORTER: You have explained that the objectives and targets of the primary and secondary assessments differ. However, they are both exactly same in the sense that they are to decide whether a nuclear power station is safe to continue operations or not. The difference is that primary assessments are conducted in accordance with regularly scheduled checks, meaning that they will be carried out multiple times during a short timeframe. The secondary assessments, on the other hand, are carried out over a longer time frame, meaning that they are more meticulous screenings. Is this a correct understanding of the difference in objectives and assessments?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: That is a very technical question and I don't really think I should give it an answer in a casual manner. However, I do believe that is one element. Just as you said now.

REPORTER: You say that the objectives of each assessment are different but that you understand little of their content, meaning that the recipients of the explanation don't even understand the difference well. What is the biggest difference in terms of objectives between the two assessments?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: The nuclear power stations currently receiving regular checks are being checked to confirm whether they are safe enough to begin operations again. While I am not an expert in such technical fields, I think there is a difference in character between the checks I just mentioned and the checks being carried out on currently operating nuclear power stations to reconfirm their true level of safety. To put it more exactly, each of the assessments has their own concrete criterion, which is something I think you should be able to see for yourself.

REPORTER: While the Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) has given his approval, it is my assumption that the National Safety Commission (NSC) will actually be the actor involved in the decision making activities. Are you considering creating new laws or legislation, or adopting a Cabinet decision, in order to further clarify the authority?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: As I have said before, the administration of the entire Governmental must be revised on a fundamental level in consideration of the TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station incident. However, rather concrete deliberations will be necessary when considering what approach to take when forming a permanent system. Considering the verifications of the Investigation and Verification Committee, for instance, should the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) be simply separated from METI? Of course this type of effort may be necessary, but would that alone fix the problems at hand? It will take a great deal of time to consider these issues; at least a half year or full year. When considering what we can do against this backdrop, this system was derived as a way to implement a thorough double-check of the actual situation. Three ministers agreed on this system, including the Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, who possesses the actual executive authority, as well as Minister Hosono, who governs the NSC in a broader sense. In that sense, the issue will essentially be advanced under a new structure.

REPORTER: You just mentioned that for both the primary and secondary assessments you would be referencing the stress tests being implemented in Europe. Are the stress tests conducted for the primary and secondary assessments carried out in a different manner? This may be a technical question, but please indicate what the difference is in their methodology or if they are the same.

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: As you say we are ultimately using stress tests as a source of reference. NISA will craft a proposal in light of each test's objective while referring to the stress tests, and then work to acquire the approval of the NSC. This will delve into some rather technical issues, so ultimately the NSC must independently confirm this proposal. At present, it is difficult for me to answer beyond what I have just said.

REPORTER: To confirm, is it accurate to say that the stance of the Government, including the Prime Minister, on nuclear power generation is that Japan will forgo its use this summer but that it will be necessary to use nuclear power to bear the summer next year, and that nuclear power generation will remain a primary power source in the mid- to long-term?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: I can at least say that the Government's policy on this has not yet changed.

REPORTER: Do you mean it has not changed at this moment?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: Yes.

REPORTER: Earlier at NISA there was discussion about drafting something to present to the NSC. What is the timeframe for this?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: NISA must create a thoroughly technical document. It is not something by nature that a timeframe can be placed on for political reasons. Nevertheless, I believe that it will take place in a matter of days.

REPORTER: Could it happen within the week at earliest?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: Again, this is not an issue we can put a one-week deadline on. By nature a political decision cannot be made on it. A proposal must be made from a technical and expert standpoint. That said, I do not think that it will take weeks or months.

REPORTER: I have one more question. In your description of the primary and secondary assessments, you called the secondary assessment something like a comprehensive safety assessment. Generally speaking, I think that an assessment conducted when the nuclear reactors are stopped is more comprehensive, because you can spend a greater amount of time on carrying out more tests. You have indicated that comprehensive assessments would be carried out on nuclear power stations that are currently in operation, and that for primary assessments, confirmation would only be made on the safety and appropriateness of restarting operations during regularly scheduled checks. As I see it, however, one could conjecture that the secondary assessment allows for more thorough, comprehensive checks. Also, I think that the average municipal resident would take the primary assessment to mean a simplified version.

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: This really gets into the more technical issues, but it is my understanding that the stress tests will be used as references and that they are - how should I put it - not conducted simply because assessments are easier or more difficult due to the fact that operations have been stopped. Conversely, this is an additional primary assessment that is conducted after the regular checks, which are carried out on nuclear power stations precisely because they are not in operation, or because it is easier when they are stopped. These tests take the latest actual measurements and then conduct a thorough simulation by applying various different stresses to confirm the safety margin. It is my understanding that, by nature, these stress tests are safety checks that fundamentally differ from assessments that take so-called measurements, in terms of the fact that conducting the regular checks is a premise.

REPORTER: Concerning what you have said so far regarding power stations that have stopped due to some kind of problem, including minor ones, and - although this may not happen for a long while - newly built nuclear power stations, how do you intend to disclose information about this?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: For those which have stopped due to some kind of a problem, there is a system for solving problems and checking for safety, and after that, there is a general set of rules for determining whether power stations should be restarted or not. I assume that in addition to this process, a primary assessment will be carried out. This has not been discussed, but I believe this would be the most natural course to take.

REPORTER: Traditionally, the work of the NSC has mostly revolved around offering advice. Is the job of verifying the validity of the stress tests considered within the scope of the NSC's responsibilities? Or, can I take this to mean that the future positioning of the NSC is being reexamined? Please give us your views on this.

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: Its future is one of the many issues being deliberated on, but in an arena separate from this policy we have developed. Based on existing laws, if NISA checks for safety and as a result the Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry approves it, it is legally possible to go from a regular inspection straight to a restart. We do not intend to change the law related to this. However, due to the reasons I have been giving thus far, we believe it would be important to have the NSC verify inspections, as a matter of practice. Because of the NSC's, how should I say, innate characteristics, and due to actual necessity, the Government, or more specifically, the Government via Minister Hosono, will consult with NSC on such questions as whether the standards for primary assessment developed by NISA are truly appropriate or not, or whether the tests being carried out based on these standards are appropriate. We will have the NSC formally evaluate such matters and offer us what I suppose would be legal advice. Based on that, ultimately, Minister Hosono, who is in charge of the NSC; Minister Kaieda who has legal authority in this issue; myself , as I was responsible for coordinating the agreement for this matter; and finally the Prime Minister, will carry out the final technical confirmation. I believe this will be the process which will be taken.

REPORTER: I believe you said earlier that the Government could not indicate the timing of assessments. But to carry out these assessments would mean that there will be many power stations that will have stopped due to the need for regular inspection at the end of next April. They may not be able to restart, and as a result all 54 stations could end up halting operation. Do you believe that such a situation can be avoided at the very least?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: Of course this is all ultimately based on the premise that technological safety is ensured based on the conventional, legally enforced evaluations, the primary assessment we have recently decided on, and the evaluations by the NSC, an independent entity. I believe that as long as these matters are carried out properly, we will be able to deal with each situation, procedurally speaking, without the need to worry about such a situation occurring.

REPORTER: My apologies for repeatedly asking for confirmation, but without the ability to ascertain around when the stress tests will begin and end, it seems impossible to approximate when nuclear power stations will be restarted. Does the Government not see this as a problem?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY EDANO: It would be ideal for the whole process to happen as speedily as possible. However, as I have been repeatedly saying, the significance of utilizing the NSC lies in the fact that it is a third party entity and that it is independent of the side that is promoting this new process. So to tell them, "Come up with your results by this time because we need to meet the demand for electricity," would defeat the purpose. Therefore, while we would like for everything to happen as promptly as possible and would like to at least have NISA offer suggestions to the NSC not in a matter of weeks or days, for me to suggest a schedule from my position, I believe, would take away the significance of having primary assessments in the first place.