» Nuclear Disaster Victims’ Support Act Q & A
The Nuclear Disaster Victims’ Support Act (Official name: Act Concerning the Promotion of Measures to Provide Living Support to the Victims, including the Children, who were Affected by the TEPCO Nuclear Accident in Order to Protect and Support their Lives) was established at the National Diet on June 21, 2012.
A1: Progress has not been made to establish relief and rights of the many people who suffer from the damage of the nuclear accident. Among those who were forced to evacuate, many are experiencing serious difficulties through economic hardship and drastic changes in their lives. Based on the Disaster Relief Act, the Kariage housing system (where the government pays the rental fee of survivors’ apartments) was applied, yet the acceptance of new applications ended last year. Those who remain in Fukushima are also facing many issues such as not being able to allow their children to play outside, anxiety regarding radiation exposure, fear regarding future health conditions, and lack of retreat programs for children. In addition, policies to reduce and avoid exposure radiation are insufficient, and medical insurance and health check-ups in the case of health damage occurring in the present or future is limited to Fukushima Prefecture (Act on Fukushima Reconstruction Special Measures). Assistance to both those who have been displaced and to those who remain in Fukushima is an urgent matter.
A2: The act includes broad support for the victims of the nuclear accident, respect for the right to choose to either remain in, evacuate from or return to Fukushima, preventive measures relating to health effects especially for children (including those who were in utero), health check-ups and reduction of medical costs.
- The Responsibility of the State
- The Act clearly refers to the responsibility of the State, as follows: “the State is socially responsible for having promoted nuclear energy policy so far” (Article 3)
- Support Target Area
- The Act designates as the “Support Target Area” a broader area than the evacuation zone ordered by the government (See Article 8(1)) and prescribes assistance for both victims who are living in these areas and those who have evacuated from there.
Refer to Q6: Where is the “Support Target Area”? ?
The contents of assistance are referred to in Articles 8 and 9.
|
Contents of assistance |
| Victims living in the Support Target Area |
Securing medical assistance, school assistance for children, securing food safety in schools and homes, implementation of outdoor activities, support for children who will be living away from their family, decontamination, radiation measurement for school lunches etc. |
| Victims evacuated from the Support Target Area |
Support for transportation, securing accommodations in replaced area, learning assistance, job search assistance, support to receive public services smoothly at the relocation area, maintaining the relationship with public administrative office of Support Target Area, and support for children who will be living away from their family |
| Assistance to victims returning to their original places |
Support for transportation, measures to secure housing, measures to job searching, support to receive public services smoothly, support for children who are living away from their families. |
In Article 13(2), regular health checkups for victims are prescribed, especially life-long health checkups for children.
In relation to those who lived in areas areas where radiation is above a certain threshold has been detected during their childhood (including those whose mothers lived in such areas while they were in utero) and those in similar circumstances, the measures shall be carried out throughout life-long. (Article 13(2))
In Article 13(3), the exemption of medical cost is mentioned. A more detailed explanation is in Q4&Q5.
A3: The answer from lawmakers who proposed the bill in the National Assembly was “Some cases of reduction of health care costs for those other than children and pregnant women will be accepted.”
Article 13(3) is defined as follows, with the provision for children and pregnant women clearly defined, but not clear for other adults.
In relation to the medical expenses to be borne by Victims who are children or pregnant women (excluding medical care relating to injury or illness not caused by exposure to radiation caused by the TEPCO Nuclear Accident), the State shall take measures which are necessary to reduce the financial burden or any other measures relating to the provision of medical care to the Victims.
In addition, in May 2012, several civil society organizations submitted a written request and petition on this bill. One of their requests was to expand the range of the reduction of health care costs for adults.
A4: In the deliberations at the Diet, the answer was that health care costs will be reduced over the course of their life for children (including those in utero at the time) who used to or now live in an area contaminated with more than a certain dose. However, this is not specified in the Act as such, so should be made clear in the future.
A5: Victims will not need to bear burden of proof of a causal relationship between radiation exposure and disease. This is based on the experience of the victims of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Minamata who have been suffering for years. The State is responsible for proving that “this disease is not caused due to exposure to radiation.”
Article 13 (3) mentions as follows.
In relation to medical expenses to be borne by Victims who are children or pregnant women (excluding medical care relating to injury or illness not caused by exposure to radiation caused by the TEPCO Nuclear Accident), the State shall take measures which are necessary to reduce the financial burden or any other measures relating to the provision of medical care to the Victims.
The wording means that the state has the burden of proof if it does not exempt the medical cost based on the reason that the illness or injury is not caused by exposure to radiation according to h TEPCO nuclear accident.
A6: The Support Target Area is defined as follows in Article 8(1):
Areas where the level of radiation is below that which will require the Government to order evacuation, but above a certain threshold
The current standards of evacuation order by the government is exposure to more than 20mSv per year. Support Target Areas are defined as more than “certain criteria” and less than or equal to 20 mSv per year.
In the deliberations of the National Diet, some lawmakers pointed out that the ICPR (the International Commission on Radiological Protection) limits the exposure of the general public to below 1mSv a year with respect to “certain criteria”.
There are various opinions, such as: “we aim to reach below 1 mSv,” and “we will decide based on the local circumstances and the opinions of the victims so as not to disrupt the victims again,” (Rep. Ikuko Tanioka, June 14 2012, the Special Committee on Reconstruction for the Great East Japan Earthquake, House of Councilors), “All regions of Fukushima will be included” (Rep. Masako Mori, June 15, Special Committee for the Great East Japan Earthquake Reconstruction, House of Representatives).
In the future, this will be specified in the implementation policy defined in Article 5.
In addition, after the Chernobyl accident the “Chernobyl Law” was enacted in neighboring countries, defining regions where additional yearly exposure is more than 1mSv as “evacuation right zones”, and regions more than 5mSv as “evacuation duty zones”.
A7: A wide range of ministries and agencies will be involved. The basic policy will be made by the Reconstruction Agency. The research on radiation will be done by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). The assistance for decontamination and health management will be conducted by the Ministry of the Environment. Securing housing and assistance for transportation will be handled by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. The employment support will be done by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare.
A8: The following problems remain regarding the Act:
- This is a so-called program “Act” which specifies only the principles and framework; it is assumed that the actual enforcement will be defined according to ordinance from the Government and guidelines. The government will make the “basic policy” including definition of the range of the Support Target Area and the assistance plan for the victims. The government is expected to reflect the voices of the victims in this process.
- The Support Target Area is not defined; this will be undertaken in the “Basic Policy” also.
- Although the Reconstruction Agency plays a central role, many ministries will be involved leading to ambiguity in responsibility.
- Collaboration with local governments is essential.
- Concrete measures for budgeting have not been made.
Based on these points, we must make use of the Act through a broad coalition of the national government, parliamentarians, local authorities, affected parties, support groups and citizens.
A9: Responding to the enactment of this Act, a broad citizens network called the “Citizens’ Forum for the TEPCO Nuclear Disaster Victims’ Support Act” (hereinafter referred to as Citizens’ Forum) was established. Comprising both affected parties and support groups, there are 43 member organisations as of January 2013, and the Save Fukushima Children Lawyers’ Network (SAFLAN) and FoE Japan are responsible for the secretariat functions. Working together with parliamentarians, the Citizens’ Forum is lobbying for the realization of concrete support for victims as soon as possible through dialogue with the government.
On November 28, 2012, it had a meeting with the Minister of Reconstruction and submitted recommendations on the basic policy of the Act. It also conducted negotiations with the government.
In order to seek the continuation of the housing Kariage system (wherein the rental fee of victims’ apartments is covered by the government), the Citizens’ Forum also submitted an urgent petition to the Ministry of Health and the Fukushima Prefectural authorities, and conducted related negotiations.
Tags:citizens' movement, NGO
About Us