The Waseda Project: Namie Legal Defense Team Panel III - Eri Osaka: Fukushima Nuclear Damage Compensation System: Present Situation and Challenges

1. Fukushima Nuclear Damage
Compensation System:
Present Situation and Challenges
April 1, 2017
Institute of Comparative Asian Studies
Temple University Japan
Eri Osaka
Toyo University
1
The Waseda Project: Namie Legal Defense Team

2. Presentation Outline
• Nuclear Damage Compensation System
• Problems
– Problems in the Interim Guidelines and Supplements
• Drafting process
• Contents
– Problems inherent in the system
• Obscured Liability
• Combination with Return Policy
• Group ADRs and Group Lawsuits
2

3. Nuclear Damage Compensation System
OECD, Japan's Compensation System for Nuclear Damage: As Related
to the TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident (2012), at 88. 3

4. Three Compensation Routes for
Victims
• Direct route
– An application form with necessary documents must
submitted directly to TEPCO. The amount for
compensation is decided by TEPCO, based on the
compensation standards set by TEPCO in light of the
“Interim Guidelines” set by the Dispute Reconciliation
Committee for Nuclear Damage Compensation.
• ADR offered by the Center for Nuclear Damage
Reconciliation (Nuclear Damage ADR Center)
– Mediators offer reconciliation proposal with reference
to the Interim Guidelines and the Center’s “General
Standards”.
• Litigation
4

5. Source: TEPCO (http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/comp/images/jisseki-e.pdf)
Compensation Paid by TEPCO
5

6. Cases Processed through ADR
(as of March 18, 2016)*
(1) Applied cases: 19,359
(2) Closed cases: 16,667
– Settled: 13,881
– Withdrawn: 1,466
– Discontinued: 1,319
– Denied: 1
(3) Pending cases ((1)‐(2)): 2,692 (among them,
the center offered settlement plan in 223
cases.)
6
* Preliminary results
Source: Center for Nuclear Damage Reconciliation

7. Problems in the Interim Guidelines
1. Drafting Process
Apr. 11, 2011 Establishment of the Committee under the MEXT
6th Session, May 31, 2011
7th Session, Jun. 9, 2011
8th Session, Jun. 20, 2011
Discussions for mental damages emerging from being obliged to
live outside their home and being hindered of maintaining and
continuing their regular everyday life for a long period of time
13th Session, Aug. 5, 2011 Interim Guidelines
18th Session, Dec. 6, 2011 First Supplement: voluntary evacuation damages
26th Session, Mar. 16, 2012 Second Supplement: damages related to review of evacuation areas
by government instruction
July 20, 2012 METI published the “Concept for Compensation Standards
following Review of the Areas under Evacuation Orders”
30th Session, Jan. 30, 2013 Third Supplement: rumor damages
May 12, 2014 First site visit by the Committee member
39th Session, Dec.26, 2013 Fourth Supplement: damages associated with the prolongation of
evacuation orders (revised at 42nd Session, Jan. 28, 2016)
7

8. Problems in the Interim Guidelines
2. Contents
• The Committee made clear that:
– except for the damages caused by earthquake and
tsunami, any damages can be compensated if the
nuclear accident is the legally sufficient cause of
such damages.
– the damage not covered by these guidelines can
be covered if the nuclear accident is the legally
sufficient cause of such damage.
8
○Minimum ×Maximum

9. Problems Inherent in the System
1. Liability
• Main applicable law for Direct Compensation
and ADR = Act on Compensation for Nuclear
Damage
– Unless the nuclear damage is caused by a grave
natural disaster of an exceptional character or by
an insurrection, ONLY nuclear operator owes NO‐
FAULT LIABILITY for the nuclear damage.
State Liability?
‘No fault’ liability?
9

10. Problems Inherent in the System
2. Combination with Return Policy
Restricted Access Area
04/01/2012
Restricted Access Area
(09/05/2016)
Source: Ministry of Economy, Trade and Economy
Source: Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry,
10

11. Problems Inherent in the System
2. Combination with Return Policy
11Source: Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry,
Returning difficulty
zone
(24,100 people/
9,000 households)
Restricted habitation
zone
(22,700 people/
8,300 households)
Evacuation directive
lift prepared zone
(23,600 people/
8,000 households)
Restricted Access Area
(As of Sep. 5, 2015)
Minamisoma Lawsuit
Demanding the
Cancellation of the Lift
Order for Recommended
evacuation zone

12. Mental Damage paid to partly cover
the increased living cost
1st Period
2nd period
3rd Period to the end
(Both evacuators and settlers are treated in the same way)
Restricted zone;
and
Deliberated
evacuation zone
¥100,000 per
month (¥120,000
for evacuators to
gymnasium etc.)
Returning difficult
zone
Lump‐sum ¥6 million Lump‐sum ¥10
million for “loss of
home land”
Restricted
habitation zone
¥100,000 per month
(payable in lump‐sum:
¥2.4 million for two years)
To be paid up to a
year after the lift
(for the present
standard)
Evacuation
directive lift
prepared zone
¥100,000 per month
1st period & 2nd
Period to 03/11/12
3rd Period to the end
Evacuation‐
prepared zone
¥100,000 per
month (¥120,000
for evacuators to
gymnasium etc.)
¥100,000 per month until August, 2012
Recommended
evacuation zone
¥100,000 per month until 3 months after the lift
12Source: Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
Voluntary Evacuation Zone: For pregnant women and children under 18: 400,000 yen
For others: 80,000 yen

13. Major Accomplishments by
Group ADRs
Filed Group Num. of
Applicant
Reconciliation Proposal TEPCO’s
Answer
07/13/2012 Iitate‐
Nagadoro
Approx.
180
¥500,000 (1 million yen for pregnant
woman or child) for anxiety caused by
radiation exposure
Y
12/26/2012 Kawamata‐
Yamakiya
119 Property damage award equivalent to the
one for Returning Difficult Zone residents
Y
01/25/2013 Iitate‐
Warabidaira
111 1. Property Damage Award
2. ¥500,000 (1 million yen per pregnant
woman or child) for anxiety caused by
radiation exposure
3. ¥100,000 per month for an additional
year
1. Y
2. N
3. N
02/05/2013 Date 1008 ¥70,000 per month Y
05/29/2013 Namie Approx.
15,000
¥150,000 per month N
13
Source: F1, Wakaijisseki Ooku, Fueru Shudan Sosho, Kahoku Shimpo (Apr. 5, 2015)

14. Group Lawsuits
14
District Court Case Number of Plaintiffs
Sapporo 1 256
Sendai 1 93
Yamagata 1 742
Fukushima 9 7826
Maebashi 1 137
Saitama 1 68
Chiba 2 65
Tokyo 5 1535
Yokohama 1 174
Niigata 1 807
Nagoya 1 132
Kyoto 1 175
Osaka 1 240
Kobe 1 92
Okayama 1 103
Hiroshima 1 28
Matsuyama 1 25
Fukuoka 1 411
Total 31 12539
Source: Hironori Tsuchie, Daishinsai 5 nen, Genpatsujiko Genkoku 12539 nin,
Sosho Zenkoku 31 ken, Mainichi Shinbun March 6, 2016

15. Diverse Plaintiffs
• evacuators from mandatory evacuation zone
• evacuators from “voluntary” evacuation zone
• stayers in “voluntary” evacuation zone
• evacuators from the area not designated as
mandatory or “voluntary” evacuation zones
• stayers outside of mandatory or “voluntary”
evacuation zones
15

16. Common Goals
• Apology from TEPCO and the Government
– TEPCO’s acceptance of its negligence
– The Government’s acceptance of its liability
• Full Compensation
• Community Recovery
16
Better Preparedness and Response to
Future Accidents

17. 17
Thank you!