EDITORIAL: First Fukushima compensation guidelines released

In response to the accident at Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant operated by Tokyo Electric Power Co., a government screening panel on disputes for compensation for nuclear accidents has announced its first guidelines on who will be eligible for what kind of damage. Since compensation will be made before the settlement of the ongoing accident, the panel plans to release guidelines in sequence. This is the first set of such guidelines.

According to the plan, residents of evacuation zones and areas where they are advised to stay indoors will be paid transportation expenses for evacuation and accommodations and amounts equivalent to their salaries for workers who could not go to work. Farmers, livestock breeders and fisheries workers will be compensated for loss of income due to restrictions on shipment and evacuation and expenses for disposal. Provisional payment will be made even when damages have yet to be finalized. The contents are basically acceptable.

Indemnity for a nuclear criticality accident that occurred at a nuclear fuel plant in Tokai, Ibaraki Prefecture, operated by JCO Co. in 1999 served as the starting point for deliberations. At the time, damage was classified into eight categories and studied from the viewpoints of "place" and "time." Compensation was made for damage that was found to have corresponding causal relationships with the accident.

This first set of guidelines also provides compensation for mental suffering, an area that was not covered in the JCO accident. We believe this is natural given that many people are required to spend a long time in evacuation centers.

Is there no need to cover the expenses of people who live outside the evacuation zone but fled their homes voluntarily? While listening to the voices of evacuees, the panel is urged to study this point as soon as possible.

"Loss of business" suffered by farmers, fisheries workers, livestock breeders, merchants, manufacturers and operators of tourism and other businesses presents a difficult problem.

According to the first set of guidelines, operators will be compensated for loss of sale for items for which the government issued instructions to restrict shipment for specific periods. The same rule applies to voluntary suspension of shipments requested by local governments and the shutdown of factories and stores.

But prices of some products dropped even though they were found to be free of radioactive substances because consumers held off buying. How should such cases be treated? What about products whose sale remains sluggish even after the lifting of shipment bans and regulation of imports countries that buy Japanese products? There are many points that need to be dealt with.

The panel is said to be prepared to provide compensation as broadly as possible. We wish to commend such a basic stance. Be that as it may, since it is a problem that affects electricity bills and taxes, the framework of compensation cannot be broadened without limit.

The panel needs to go back to the basis of "corresponding causal relationships" and study each case from a professional viewpoint.

TEPCO is primarily responsible for providing compensation by accepting claims for damage from evacuees and businesses. Still, it is believed that it is difficult for TEPCO to cover all the damage alone. Work to build a framework of compensation with the involvement of the government has just begun.

Compensation must not be delayed because TEPCO is unable to make payments. Nor should the framework for compensation be made hastily in a rough-and-ready manner. We urge TEPCO and the government to work closely together to firmly deal with the situation.

--The Asahi Shimbun, April 29