Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Public Lecture Presentation Slides (4.1.2016) Eri Osaka: Fukushima nuclear damage compensation system present situation and challenges


Published on

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

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Public Lecture Presentation Slides (4.1.2016) Eri Osaka: Fukushima nuclear damage compensation system present situation and challenges

  1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 5. Source: TEPCO ( Compensation Paid by TEPCO 5
  6. 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Processed through ADR (as of March 18, 2016)* (1) Applied cases: 19,359 (2) Closed cases: 16,667 – Settled: 13,881 – Withdrawn: 1,466 – Discontinued: 1,319 – Denied: 1 (3) Pending cases ((1)‐(2)): 2,692 (among them,  the center offered settlement plan in 223  cases.) 6 * Preliminary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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 17 Thank you!