On May 25, 2005, theHouse Committee on Resources and the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the HouseCommittee on International Relations held a joint hearing on the Changed Circumstances Petition . On July 19, 2005, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held an oversight hearingon the effects of the U.S. nuclear testing program on the Marshall Islands. (5) Thereport concludes that "the Marshall Islands' request does not qualify as 'changed circumstances'within the meaning of Article IX of the nuclear claims settlement agreement enacted under Title II,Section 177 of the Compact of Free Association Act of 1985." The report also disputes some keyscientific claims of the Petition regarding the geographical extent of radioactive fallout, radiationdose estimates, and the applicability of U.S. standards to conditions in the RMI. Consequently,according to the Bush Administration, there is no legal basis for considering additional payments. This report analyzes and discusses several issues related to key personal injury, health care,and property damages claims in the Petition. The RMI argues that a morerecent U.S. radiation protection standard warrants further cleanup in the Marshall Islands. In September 2000, the Marshall Islands government submitted to the United States Congressa nuclear claims petition ( Changed Circumstances Petition) requesting, over a 50-year period,approximately $3.3 billion for personal injuries, property damages, medical care and training, andradiological monitoring pursuant to the Compact of Free Association. U.S. 99-239 (the Compact of Free Association Act),and 108-188 (The Compact of Free Association Amendments Act). However, Article IX of the 177Agreement (the Changed Circumstances Clause ) provided for possible additional compensation, ifloss or damages to persons or property arose or were discovered that could not reasonably have beenidentified as of the effective date of the agreement (1986) and if such injuries rendered the provisionsof the Compact "manifestly inadequate." These include expected radiation-related illnesses in the Marshall Islands; themethodology for determining the value of "lost use" of damaged properties; the appropriate standardof risk (annual dose limit) for determining cleanup levels; and the extent of radioactive fallout. Finally, this report discusses possible legal options for the RMI in pursuing nuclear damages claims. List of Major Legislation Authorizing orAppropriating Compensation for Nuclear Testing, 1964-2004 (115)
Sources : Agreement Between the Government of the United States and the Government of theRepublic of the Marshall Islands for Implementation of Section 177 of the Compact of FreeAssociation , Appendix A; U.S. Department of State, Report Evaluating the Request of theGovernment of the Republic of the Marshall Islands Presented to the Congress of the United Statesof America , November 2004, Appendix B; Nuclear Testing in the Marshall Islands: A Chronologyof Events http://www.rmiembassyus.org/Nuclear%20Issues.htm#Chronology .
In September 2000, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) government submitted to theUnited States Congress a Changed Circumstances Petition related to U.S. nuclear testing on theMarshall Islands atolls of Bikini and Enewetak during the 1940s and 1950s. The Petition requestsadditional compensation for personal injuries and property damages and restoration costs, medicalcare programs, health services infrastructure and training, and radiological monitoring. Accordingto various estimates, between 1954 and 2004, the United States spent over $500 million on nucleartest compensation and related assistance in the Marshall Islands.
The Petition bases its claims for compensation upon "changed circumstances" pursuant toSection 177 of the Compact of Free Association. The Compact of Free Association, enacted in 1986,governs the economic and strategic relationships between the United States and the RMI. TheSection 177 Agreement granted $150 million as part of a "full and final settlement" of legal claimsagainst the U.S. government, and provided for possible additional compensation, if loss or damagesto persons or property arose or were discovered that could not reasonably have been identified as ofthe effective date of the agreement, and if such injuries rendered the provisions of the Compact"manifestly inadequate." The Petition argues that "new and additional" information since theenactment of the Compact -- such as a wider extent of radioactive fallout than previously known ordisclosed and more recent radiation protection standards -- constitute "changed circumstances."
In November 2004, the U.S. Department of State released a report evaluating the legal andscientific basis of the Petition. The report concludes that "the Marshall Islands' request does notqualify as 'changed circumstances' within the meaning of Article IX of the nuclear claims settlementagreement enacted under Title II, Section 177 of the Compact of Free Association Act of 1986."Consequently, according to the Administration, there is no legal basis for considering additionalpayments. On May 25, 2005, the House Committee on Resources and the Subcommittee on Asiaand the Pacific of the House Committee on International Relations held a joint hearing on thePetition. On July 19, 2005, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held anoversight hearing on the effects of the U.S. nuclear testing program on the Marshall Islands.
This report summarizes U.S. nuclear testing on the Marshall Islands, U.S. compensationefforts to date, relevant provisions in the Compact of Free Association, and the ChangedCircumstances Petition . It analyzes several issues related to the personal injury, health care, andproperty damages claims in the Petition. These issues include estimated occurrences ofradiation-related illnesses in the Marshall Islands; the methodology for determining the value of "lostuse" of damaged properties; the appropriate standard of risk (annual dose limit) for determiningcleanup levels; and the extent of radioactive fallout. This report also discusses possible legal optionsfor the RMI in pursuing nuclear test damages claims and identifies policy options for the 109thCongress.