This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-481 
entitled 'Radiation Exposure Compensation: Funding to Pay Claims May Be 
Inadequate to Meet Projected Needs' which was released on April 10, 
2003.



This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 

(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 

longer term project to improve GAO products accessibility. Every 

attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 

the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 

descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 

end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 

but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 

version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 

replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 

your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 

document to Webmaster@gao.gov.



Report to Congressional Committees:



United States General Accounting Office:



GAO:



April 2003:



Radiation Exposure Compensation:



Funding to Pay Claims May Be Inadequate to Meet Projected Needs:



GAO-03-481:



GAO Highlights:



Highlights of GAO-03-481, a report to Congressional Committees



Why GAO Did This Study:



On October 15, 1990, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) was 

enacted providing for payments to individuals who contracted certain 

cancers and other serious diseases presumably as a result of their 

exposure to radiation released during aboveground nuclear weapons tests 

or as a result of their employment associated with the uranium mining 

industry during the Cold War era.



The RECA Amendments of 2000 required that GAO report to the Congress on 

the Department of Justices administration of RECA not later than 18 

months after the enactment of the amendments and every 18 months 

thereafter. GAO originally reported on the status of the program in 

September 2001.  The objectives of this report are to update 

information on claims processing, payments from the Trust Fund, and 

administrative expenses.



What GAO Found:



Since the enactment of the RECA Amendments of 2000, which expanded 

eligibility for benefits, the RECA program has experienced a 

significant increase in the number of claims filed. Claims also are 

taking longer to process, and the number of pending claims has grown 

sharply. Since we last reported in September 2001, claims have 

increased from 7,819 to 14,987.  Pending claims have increased 300 

percent, from 653 to 2,654. About 3,200 new claims are anticipated in 

fiscal year 2003. In addition, the average time to process claims 

increased for each category of claimant.

 

Given these circumstances, current funding for the RECA program to pay 

claims may be inadequate to meet projected needs. In fiscal year 2002, 

RECA was appropriated funds to cover a 10-year periodfiscal years 2002 

through 2011 up to a specified amount per yeartotaling $655 million. 

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Department of Justice 

(DOJ) estimate that funding levels appropriated to the Trust Fund are 

insufficient to meet the projected claims. As a result, claims may be 

delayed, particularly through 2007. Since 1993, funding for DOJ 

administration of the program has been provided in a separate 

appropriation account for Radiation Exposure Compensation 

administrative expenses. For fiscal years 2001 and 2002, the RECA 

program may have exceeded its appropriation for administrative 

expenses. According to a program budget official, the RECA program 

spent about $100,000 in fiscal year 2001 and about $1 million for 

fiscal year 2002 in administrative expenses over the $1.996 million 

appropriated to the RECA expenses account in those fiscal years. For 

fiscal year 2003, Congress authorized DOJs Civil Division to absorb 

any additional funding required for administrative expenses above the 

amount appropriated. However, the availability of additional funds, if 

needed, for administrative expenses is contingent on the Civil 

Divisions ability to absorb any additional costs. 



What GAO Recommends:



GAO recommends that the Attorney General consult with the congressional 

committees of jurisdiction to develop a strategy to address the gap 

between current funding levels and the amount of funding needed to pay 

claims projected to be approved over the 2003-2011 period. 



www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-481.



To view the full report, including the scope

and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact, Paul L. Jones at (202) 512-8777 or 

jonesp@gao.gov.



[End of section]



Contents:



Letter:



Results in Brief:



Background:



Since Fiscal Year 2000, RECA Claims Increased Significantly, Processing 

Time Has Slowed, and the Number of Pending Claims Has Grown:



Funding to Pay Claims May Be Inadequate to Meet Projected Needs:



Spending on Program Administration Has Increased:



Agency Comments:



Conclusions:



Recommendation:



Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:



Appendix II: Summary of Key Radiation Exposure Compensation Program 

Provisions by Claimant Category:



Appendix III: RECPs Claims Adjudication Process:



Tables:



Table 1: Number of RECA Claims Approved, Denied, and Pending through 

Fiscal Year 2002:



Table 2: Processing Time in Months for Approved and Denied Claims for 

Fiscal Years 1992 through 2002:



Table 3: Average Number of Days to Process a Claim for Fiscal Years 

1992 through 2002:



Table 4: Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund Activity, Fiscal 

Years 1992 through 2002:



Table 5: Appropriations to Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund, 

Fiscal Years 2002 through 2011:



Table 6: CBO Estimate of the Funding Shortfall for the Radiation 

Exposure Compensation Trust Fund for Fiscal Years 2002 through 2011:



Table 7: DOJ Estimate of the Funding Shortfall for the Radiation 

Exposure Compensation Trust Fund, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2011:



Table 8: Average Full-Time Equivalent Staff Levels and Administrative 

Costs for Processing RECA Claims for Fiscal Years 1992 through 2002:



Figures:



Figure 1: Map of RECA-Covered Areas:



Figure 2: Number of RECA Claims Filed from Fiscal Years 1992 through 

2002 and Fiscal Year 2003 Estimate:



Figure 3: Funding Shortfall between the Amount of Funding Currently 

Appropriated to the Trust Fund and CBOs Estimate through Fiscal Year 

2011:



Abbreviations:



CBO: Congressional Budget Office:



DOJ: Department of Justice:



FTE: full-time equivalent:



OPB&E: Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation:



RECA: Radiation Exposure Compensation Act:



RECP: Radiation Exposure Compensation Program:



WLM: Working Level Months:



This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright 

protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 

in its entirety without further permission from GAO. It may contain 

copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. Permission from the 

copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce 

copyrighted materials separately from GAOs product.



United States General Accounting Office:



Washington, DC 20548:



April 14, 2003:



Congressional Committees:



From 1945 through 1962, the United States conducted a series of 

aboveground atomic weapons tests as it built up its Cold War nuclear 

arsenal. Many people exposed to radiation resulting from the nuclear 

weapons development and testing program subsequently developed serious 

diseases, including various types of cancer. On October 15, 1990, in 

order to establish a procedure to make partial restitution to these 

victims for their suffering associated with the radiation 

exposure,[Footnote 1] the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) 

was enacted.[Footnote 2] RECA provided that the Attorney General be 

responsible for processing and adjudicating claims under the act. The 

Department of Justice (DOJ) established the Radiation Exposure 

Compensation Program (RECP) within its Civil Division to administer its 

responsibilities under the act. RECP began processing claims in April 

1992. RECA has been amended several times,[Footnote 3] including on 

July 10, 2000, when the RECA Amendments of 2000 were enacted.[Footnote 

4] The amendments of 2000 broadened the scope of eligibility for 

benefits coverage to include new victim categories and modified the 

criteria for determining eligibility for compensation.



The 2000 amendments also included a mandate that we report to the 

Congress on DOJs administration of RECA not later than 18 months after 

the enactment of the amendments and every 18 months thereafter. Our 

first report was issued in September 2001 and covered program 

performance from 1992 through fiscal year 2000.[Footnote 5] For this 

report, we are updating (1) information on claims processing, (2) 

information on the costs to administer the program, and (3) the status 

of Trust Fund expenditures.



To determine the outcomes of the claims adjudication process, including 

the number of approved and denied claims, the timeliness of the claims 

adjudication process, and the amount of money awarded, we obtained 

RECA-related case information from DOJs Civil Divisions case 

histories database for fiscal years 1992 through 2002. To determine the 

cost of administering RECP, we obtained data from the Civil Divisions 

Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation (OPB&E) for the end of fiscal 

years 

1992 through 2002. To determine the amount of expenditures from the 

Trust Fund, we evaluated annual Trust Fund activity from fiscal years 

1992 through 2002 provided by OPB&E. Appendix I provides details on our 

scope and methodology.



Results in Brief:



The enactment of the RECA Amendments of 2000 was followed by a 

significant increase in the number of claims filed and processed. The 

number of claims filed has increased 92 percent, from 7,819 through the 

end of fiscal year 2000 to 14,987 through the end of fiscal year 2002. 

Claims are taking longer to process, and the number of pending (in 

process) claims has grown sharply since we last reported in September 

200l. The number of pending claims rose about 300 percent, from 653 at 

the end of fiscal year 2000 to 2,654 by the end of fiscal year 2002. 

The percentage of claims processed within 12 months has dropped from 89 

percent at the end of fiscal year 2000 to 79 percent by the end of 

fiscal year 2002.



The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002 provided 

funding for the RECA Trust Fund to cover a 10-year period--fiscal years 

2002 through 2011 up to a specified maximum amount per year. According 

to DOJ officials, fiscal year 2002 funding was exhausted before the end 

of the fiscal year, and funding is likely to be exhausted before the 

close of fiscal year 2003. A total of $655 million is appropriated for 

fiscal years 

2002 through 2011. However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and 

DOJ estimate that the funding levels will be insufficient to meet the 

projected claims. The greatest anticipated shortfall, between $72 

million and $87 million, will occur over fiscal years 2003 through 

2005. According to a budget official, there has also been upward 

pressure on the costs to administer the program in recent years. Since 

1993, funding for DOJ to administer the program has been provided in a 

separate appropriation account for Radiation Exposure Compensation 

administrative expenses. There is an outstanding issue with respect to 

the programs administrative expenses for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 in 

that spending may have exceeded its appropriations for those years. The 

Antideficiency Act provides that an officer or employee of the U.S. 

government may not make or authorize an expenditure or obligation 

exceeding an amount available in an appropriation or fund, or enter 

into a contract or other obligation for payment of money before an 

appropriation is made. Total administrative expenses were $2.1 million 

for fiscal year 2001 and $3 million for fiscal year 2002, while the 

appropriation for Radiation Exposure Compensation administrative 

expenses was $1.996 million for each of those fiscal years. The 

Consolidated Appropriation Resolution of 2003,[Footnote 6] contained 

several changes to the programs administrative expenses appropriation. 

For example, the language of the administrative expenses appropriation 

was changed from a specified amount of $1,996,000 to a specified 

minimum amount of not less than $1,996,000. Accompanying conference 

report language provides that the conferees expect the Civil Division 

to absorb any additional requirements for processing RECA claims from 

other resources available to the Civil Division.



Background:



RECA established a procedure to make partial restitution to individuals 

who contracted serious diseases, such as certain types of cancers, 

presumably resulting from their exposure to radiation from aboveground 

nuclear tests or as a result of their employment in the uranium 

industry. In addition to creating eligibility criteria for 

compensation, RECA created a Trust Fund to pay claims. The Attorney 

General is responsible for reviewing applications to determine whether 

applicants qualify for compensation and establishing procedures for 

paying claims. To discharge these two responsibilities, the Attorney 

General has issued implementing regulations.[Footnote 7]



The regulations established RECP within DOJs Civil Division and 

charged it with administering claims adjudication and compensation 

under the act. To file for compensation, the claimant or eligible 

surviving beneficiary, either acting on his or her own behalf or 

represented by counsel, submits the appropriate claim forms along with 

corroborating documentation to RECP, whose claims examiners and legal 

staff review and adjudicate the claims. If the claim is approved, a 

letter is sent notifying the person of the approval and enclosing an 

acceptance of payment form for the claimant to return to RECP. 

According to program officials, upon receipt of a signed acceptance of 

payment form, DOJ authorizes the Treasury Department to make payment 

from the Trust Fund. The RECA Amendments of 2000 require that the 

Attorney General pay claims within 

6 weeks of approval. If the victim is deceased, compensation may be 

awarded to the victims eligible survivors (e.g., the victims spouse 

or children). Appendix III shows RECPs claims adjudication process, 

including the procedures for refiling and administratively appealing 

denied claims.



If a RECP claim does not satisfy the eligibility criteria, the claimant 

is notified of the deficiency in writing. The claimant is allowed 60 

days in which to provide documentation correcting the deficiency. At 

the expiration of the 60-day period, if the claim remains deficient, 

DOJ issues a final denial decision explaining the reasons for the 

denial, and a copy is sent to the claimant. Claimants may refile a 

claim with new information to RECP up to two more times.



DOJs decision denying the claim may be appealed administratively to a 

DOJ Appeals Officer, who can affirm or reverse the original decision or 

remand the claim back to RECP for further action. Claimants who are 

denied may also seek judicial review in a U.S. district court. Under 

DOJ implementing regulations, claimants must first exhaust their 

administrative remedies within DOJ prior to seeking judicial review. 

Program officials said that from program inception in 1992 through 

September 30, 2002, only eight claims denied by the RECP have been 

brought to district court.



The RECA Amendments of 2000 broadened the scope of eligibility for 

benefits coverage, including increasing the geographical areas covered, 

allowing more individuals to qualify, and establishing a prompt payment 

period. Figure 1 shows the affected areas under RECA.



Figure 1: Map of RECA-Covered Areas:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]





Some of the major changes resulting from the amendments include:



* permitting eligible aboveground uranium mine employees, uranium mill 

workers, and uranium ore transporters to qualify for compensation;



* increasing the geographic areas included for eligibility and 

increasing the time period considered for radiation exposure for 

uranium mine employees;



* expanding the list of specified diseases that may qualify individuals 

for compensation to include other types of cancers and also noncancers;



* decreasing the level of radiation exposure that is necessary to 

qualify for compensation for uranium mine employees;[Footnote 8]



* making certain medical documentation requirements are less stringent;



* eliminating distinctions between smokers and nonsmokers pertaining to 

diseases such as lung cancer and nonmalignant respiratory diseases;



* construing all reasonable doubts about the eligibility of a claimant 

in favor of the claimant;



* allowing previously denied claimants to file up to three more times; 

and:



* requiring the Attorney General to ensure that a claim is paid within 

6 weeks of approval.



On November 2, 2002, the 21st Century Department of Justice 

Appropriations Authorization Act[Footnote 9] was enacted. This law 

included several provisions that further amended RECA. The amendments 

affect eligibility criteria and revise claims adjudication procedures. 

These provisions were enacted near the end of our review, and we did 

not assess their potential impact on the program. Some of the major 

changes include:



* re-insertion of a Downwinder area that was inadvertently eliminated 

when RECA was amended in July 2000;



* requiring that lung cancer must, like other compensable cancers, be 

primary (i.e., originate in the specified organ or tissue);



* allowing uranium miners to qualify by meeting either the 40 Working 

Level Months (WLM) exposure standard or the 1-year duration of 

employment standard; and:



* striking the requirement that, in cases where the claimant is living, 

a claimant with lung cancer must submit the medical documentation 

required for proof of a non-malignant respiratory disease.:



* Appendix II provides a more comprehensive summary of the key 

provisions of RECA by claimant category.



In addition to RECP, other programs are authorized to provide 

compensation to persons who have presumably become ill as a result of 

working for the federal government in producing or testing nuclear 

weapons. For example, the Radiation-Exposed Veterans Compensation Act 

of 1988[Footnote 10] provides, in general, monthly compensation for 

specific diseases to veterans who were present at certain atomic bomb 

exercises, served at Hiroshima and Nagasaki during specific periods of 

the post World War II occupation of Japan, or were prisoners of war in 

Japan. In addition, Title XXXVI of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001[Footnote 11] establishes the 

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program to 

compensate covered employees or their survivors who contracted certain 

illnesses resulting from exposure to certain ultra-hazardous materials 

during employment in Department of Energy facilities that processed or 

produced radioactive materials used in the production of atomic 

weapons. Certain uranium employees who are eligible for compensation 

under RECA may also be eligible for additional compensation and medical 

benefits under title XXXVI. Specifically, uranium miners, uranium mill 

workers, and uranium ore transporters, approved under Section 5 of 

RECA, are eligible to receive under title XXXVI an additional $50,000 

lump-sum payment plus medical benefits.



Since Fiscal Year 2000, RECA Claims Increased Significantly, Processing 

Time Has Slowed, and the Number of Pending Claims Has Grown:



The enactment of the RECA Amendments of 2000 was followed by a 

significant increase in the number of claims. Although RECP received 

and processed record numbers of claims in fiscal years 2001 and 2002, 

claims are taking longer to process. In addition, the percentage of 

claims that are adjudicated within 12 months has dropped, and the 

number of pending claims has grown sharply.



RECA Claims Increased Significantly:



Since its inception in April 1992 through the end of fiscal year 2002, 

RECP has received 14,987 claims for compensation. The total number of 

RECA claims filed has increased 92 percent, from 7,819 at the end of 

fiscal year 2000 to 14,987 by the end of fiscal year 2002. In fiscal 

year 2001, the year following the enactment of the RECA 2000 

Amendments, RECP received over 3,800 claims--more claims than were 

filed in the prior 6 fiscal years combined. There were over 3,300 

claims filed in fiscal year 2002. At the end of fiscal year 2002, there 

were 2,654 claims pending adjudication. In fiscal year 2003, about 

3,200 new filings are anticipated. Figure 2 shows the number of claims 

filed each fiscal year.



Figure 2: Number of RECA Claims Filed from Fiscal Years 1992 through 

2002 and Fiscal Year 2003 Estimate:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Numbers of Claims Approved, Denied, and Pending:



When RECP reviews a claim, the review process ends in one of two 

possible outcomes--approval or denial of the claim. If approved, the 

claim is forwarded to Treasury for payment. If denied, applicants may 

refile their claims or pursue other avenues of appeal. Of the total 

14,987 claims filed, RECP reached a disposition on 12,333. The 

remaining 2,654, or about 18 percent of claims, were pending, as of 

September 30, 2002. Of the claims that were adjudicated, 7,915, or 

about 64 percent, were approved and 4,418, or about 36 percent, were 

denied. Excluding pending claims, RECP approved about 56 percent of the 

uranium mine employee claims, about 75 percent of the downwinder 

claims, about 34 percent of the onsite participant claims, about 82 

percent of the uranium mill claims, and about 81 percent of the ore 

transporter claims. Table 1 shows the number of claims approved, 

denied, and pending as of September 30, 2002.



Table 1: Number of RECA Claims Approved, Denied, and Pending through 

Fiscal Year 2002:



Approved; Category of claim: Uranium mine: employees: 2,311; Category 

of claim: Downwinders: 4,945; Category of claim: Onsite participants: 

465; Category of claim: Uranium mill employees: 156; Category of claim: 

Ore transporter employees: 38; Total: 7,915.



Denied; Category of claim: Uranium mine: employees: 1,786; Category of 

claim: Downwinders: 1,688; Category of claim: Onsite participants: 901; 

Category of claim: Uranium mill employees: 34; Category of claim: Ore 

transporter employees: 9; Total: 4,418.



Pending; Category of claim: Uranium mine: employees: 553; Category of 

claim: Downwinders: 1,677; Category of claim: Onsite participants: 247; 

Category of claim: Uranium mill employees: 138; Category of claim: Ore 

transporter employees: 39; Total: 2,654.



Total; Category of claim: Uranium mine: employees: 4,650; Category of 

claim: Downwinders: 8,310; Category of claim: Onsite participants: 

1,613; Category of claim: Uranium mill employees: 328; Category of 

claim: Ore transporter employees: 86; Total: 14,987.



Source: DOJs Civil Divisions case histories database.



Note: Approved, denied, and pending data at the time of our review.



[End of table]:



Through the end of fiscal year 2002, RECP approved about $530.5 million 

to claimants.[Footnote 12] RECP approved $230.5 million to eligible 

individuals based on uranium mine employee applications (or about 43 

percent of the total); $247.2 million based on Downwinder applications 

(or about 47 percent of the total); $33.4 million based on onsite 

participant applications (or about 6 percent of the total); $15.6 

million based on uranium miller participant applications (or about 3 

percent of the total); and $3.8 million based on ore transporter 

participant applications (or about 1 percent of the total).



Claims Taking Longer

to Process:



The RECA legislation requires that applications be processed within 

1 year. However, the law permits applicants additional time to submit 

more documentation to support their claims.[Footnote 13] About 89 

percent of the RECA applications were processed within 12 months over 

the period fiscal years 1992 through 2000. By the end of fiscal year 

2002, the percentage of claims processed within 12 months was 79 

percent. Table 2 shows the processing times in months for applicants 

over the course of RECP. We could not readily determine to what extent 

the 2,559 applications that were not processed within 1 year were due 

entirely to the granting of additional time.



Table 2: Processing Time in Months for Approved and Denied Claims for 

Fiscal Years 1992 through 2002:



Processing time in months[A]: 12 months or less; Applicant type: 

Uranium mine employees: 2,808; Applicant type: Downwinders: 5,773; 

Applicant type: Onsite: participants: 1,039; Applicant type: Uranium 

mill: employees: 105; Applicant type: Ore transporter employees: 25; 

Applicant type: Total: 9,750; Percent of total: 79.2.



Processing time in months[A]: 13 months; Applicant type: Uranium mine 

employees: 302; Applicant type: Downwinders: 260; Applicant type: 

Onsite: participants: 78; Applicant type: Uranium mill: employees: 18; 

Applicant type: Ore transporter employees: 4; Applicant type: Total: 

662; Percent of total: 5.4.



Processing time in months[A]: 14 months; Applicant type: Uranium mine 

employees: 196; Applicant type: Downwinders: 158; Applicant type: 

Onsite: participants: 45; Applicant type: Uranium mill: employees: 14; 

Applicant type: Ore transporter employees: 6; Applicant type: Total: 

419; Percent of total: 3.4.



Processing time in months[A]: 15 months; Applicant type: Uranium mine 

employees: 146; Applicant type: Downwinders: 135; Applicant type: 

Onsite: participants: 46; Applicant type: Uranium mill: employees: 10; 

Applicant type: Ore transporter employees: 3; Applicant type: Total: 

340; Percent of total: 2.8.



Processing time in months[A]: 16 months; Applicant type: Uranium mine 

employees: 113; Applicant type: Downwinders: 88; Applicant type: 

Onsite: participants: 26; Applicant type: Uranium mill: employees: 10; 

Applicant type: Ore transporter employees: 3; Applicant type: Total: 

240; Percent of total: 1.9.



Processing time in months[A]: 17 months; Applicant type: Uranium mine 

employees: 59; Applicant type: Downwinders: 63; Applicant type: Onsite: 

participants: 20; Applicant type: Uranium mill: employees: 12; 

Applicant type: Ore transporter employees: 1; Applicant type: Total: 

155; Percent of total: 1.3.



Processing time in months[A]: 18 to 24 months; Applicant type: Uranium 

mine employees: 318; Applicant type: Downwinders: 126; Applicant type: 

Onsite: participants: 64; Applicant type: Uranium mill: employees: 19; 

Applicant type: Ore transporter employees: 5; Applicant type: Total: 

532; Percent of total: 4.3.



Processing time in months[A]: More than 24 months; Applicant type: 

Uranium mine employees: 148; Applicant type: Downwinders: 19; Applicant 

type: Onsite: participants: 42; Applicant type: Uranium mill: 

employees: 2; Applicant type: Ore transporter employees: 0; Applicant 

type: Total: 211; Percent of total: 1.7.



Processing time in months[A]: Subtotal over 12 months; Applicant type: 

Uranium mine employees: [Empty]; Applicant type: Downwinders: [Empty]; 

Applicant type: Onsite: participants: [Empty]; Applicant type: Uranium 

mill: employees: [Empty]; Applicant type: Ore transporter employees: 

[Empty]; Applicant type: Total: 2,559; Percent of total: [Empty].



Processing time in months[A]: Total; Applicant type: Uranium mine 

employees: 4,090; Applicant type: Downwinders: 6,622; Applicant type: 

Onsite: participants: 1,360; Applicant type: Uranium mill: employees: 

190; Applicant type: Ore transporter employees: 47; Applicant type: 

Total: 12,309; Percent of total: 100.



Source: DOJs Civil Divisions case histories database.



[A] Appealed and pending cases have been excluded.



[End of table]



As shown in table 3, the average number of days to process a claim has 

increased in each category since our previous review. According to data 

provided by DOJ officials, for fiscal years 1992 through 2002, the 

overall average processing time from the date an application is filed 

until its disposition was 327 days for uranium miner employee claims. 

This is up from 269 days when we last reported. The average processing 

time for Downwinder claims is 244 days. This is up from 190 days when 

we last reported. The average processing time for onsite participant 

claims is

263 days. This is up from 245 days when we last reported. Uranium mill 

employee claims and ore transporter employee claims are new categories 

since we last reported. However, each of these claimant categories, on 

average, took well over a year to process, 459 days and 392 days, 

respectively. Table 3 shows the average number of days to process a 

claim for fiscal years 1992 through 2002 and the increase in processing 

time by claimant category since we last reported.



Table 3: Average Number of Days to Process a Claim for Fiscal Years 

1992 through 2002:



Applicant type: Onsite participants: End of fiscal year 2000: [Empty]; 

Applicant type: Uranium mill employee: End of fiscal year 2000: 

[Empty]; Applicant type: Ore transporter employee: End of fiscal year 

2000: [Empty].



Average days to process claims: End of fiscal year 2000; Applicant 

type: Uranium mine employees: Average days to process claims: 269; 

Applicant type: Downwinders: Average days to process claims: 190; 

Applicant type: Onsite participants: 245; Applicant type: Uranium mill 

employee: a; Applicant type: Ore transporter employee: a.



Average days to process claims: End of fiscal year 2002; Applicant 

type: Uranium mine employees: Average days to process claims: 327; 

Applicant type: Downwinders: Average days to process claims: 244; 

Applicant type: Onsite participants: 263; Applicant type: Uranium mill 

employee: 459; Applicant type: Ore transporter employee: 392.



Average days to process claims: Increase in days; Applicant type: 

Uranium mine employees: Average days to process claims: 58; Applicant 

type: Downwinders: Average days to process claims: 54; Applicant type: 

Onsite participants: 18; Applicant type: Uranium mill employee: a; 

Applicant type: Ore transporter employee: a.



Source: GAOs analysis of information from DOJs Civil Divisions Case 

Histories Database.



[A] Data not available.



[End of table]:



RECP officials attributed the increase in average time required to 

process claims to differing characteristics associated with each claim 

and the different factors involved in the review and application of the 

RECA legislation, as amended, for the five claims categories. RECP 

officials told us that since the inception of the program, its policy 

has been to assist claimants in any way that it can. For example, 

rather than denying a claim for a lack of documentation, program 

officials said that they allow claimants additional time to provide 

corroborating documentation. In many cases, claimants in the uranium 

industry were employed as millers, miners, and ore transporters over 

the course of their career. RECP officials said that if a claimant 

filed a uranium miner claim, but could not provide sufficient 

documentation to satisfy RECAs uranium miner requirements, RECP would 

work with the claimant to obtain additional documentation in order to 

satisfy the uranium miller or transporter requirements where 

appropriate.



RECP officials cited other reasons for delays in processing claims, 

including RECPs need, in certain cases, to gather medical records to 

address RECAs statutory requirements for certain compensable diseases. 

RECP said that in these instances, staff would conduct additional 

research on behalf of the claimant or allow the claimant more time to 

provide the proof necessary to meet the eligibility criteria. In 

addition to the increase in the volume of claims, program officials 

said that the adjudication of the newly added claimant categories 

(uranium millers and ore transporters) presented challenges in terms of 

deciding the types of employment records that existed and which records 

should be required and, therefore, required additional processing time 

in some instances. Similarly, RECP had to determine the medical 

evidence that would be sufficient to establish proof of the new 

compensable diseases and illnesses added to RECA.



Number of Pending Claims Is Growing:



Since the amendments of 2000, RECA claims are coming in more rapidly, 

and the processing of these claims is taking longer. As a result, the 

number of pending claims has grown sharply, from 653 at the end of 

fiscal year 2000 to 2,654 by the end of fiscal year 2002, about a 300-

percent increase. In fiscal year 2003, RECP program officials estimate 

that 3,185 new claims will be filed. It is likely that the number of 

pending claims will grow further. According to DOJ budget justification 

documents for fiscal year 2003, because the 2000 amendments eased 

eligibility requirements, many of the claims submitted in 2002 were re-

filings from previously denied claimants. According to program 

officials, the resolution of refiled claims is more straightforward. 

Therefore, these claims were processed first to speed payments to 

deserving claimants. But, program officials anticipate that the pace of 

claims processing will be slower in fiscal year 2003 than in fiscal 

year 2002, because the adjudications of the remaining claims in process 

will be more time-consuming and difficult.



Funding to Pay Claims May Be Inadequate to Meet Projected Needs:



RECA program funding is provided from two sources. The RECA Trust Fund 

receives appropriated funds from which compensation is paid to eligible 

claimants. Funding for DOJ to administer the program is provided in a 

separate appropriation account for radiation exposure compensation 

administrative expenses. Table 4 shows the RECA Trust Fund activity 

from fiscal years 1992 through 2002, including the amounts appropriated 

each year and the balance at the end of each fiscal year. Money 

remaining in the Trust Fund at the end of any given fiscal year is 

generally carried forward to the next fiscal year. The RECA Trust Fund 

received over 

$200 million in the first 2 years of the program. Between fiscal years 

1994 and 1996, the program was funded entirely by funds carried over 

from prior year appropriations. Beginning in fiscal year 1997, Congress 

resumed making annual appropriations to the RECA Trust Fund with the 

exception of fiscal year 1999 when no funds were appropriated to the 

Trust Fund. For fiscal year 2000, $11.6 million was available in the 

Trust Fund. This amount included $8.4 million carried forward from the 

prior year and a fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $3.2 million. For 

fiscal year 2001, $10.8 million was appropriated and $431,000 was 

carried over from fiscal year 2000. Later, in fiscal year 2001, the 

RECA program received a supplemental appropriation for such sums as 

may be necessary to pay claims only through the end of that fiscal 

year. This resulted in payments of $107.9 million for fiscal year 2001. 

Table 4 shows the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund Activity.



Table 4: Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund Activity, Fiscal 

Years 1992 through 2002:



Dollars in thousands: 



Fiscal year: 1992; Carry forward

from prior year: 0; Appropriated funds: $30,000; Interest earned

from government securities: 0; Total available: $30,000; Payments: 

$22,454; Balance at end of fiscal year: $7,546.



Fiscal year: 1993; Carry forward

from prior year: $7,546; Appropriated funds: $170,750; Interest earned

from government securities: $2,493; Total available: $180,789; 

Payments: $57,390; Balance at end of fiscal year: $123,399.



Fiscal year: 1994; Carry forward

from prior year: $123,399; Appropriated funds: 0; Interest earned

from government securities: $2,300; Total available: $125,699; 

Payments: $60,651; Balance at end of fiscal year: $65,048.



Fiscal year: 1995; Carry forward

from prior year: $65,048; Appropriated funds: 0; Interest earned

from government securities: $1,365; Total available: $66,413; Payments: 

$31,242; Balance at end of fiscal year: $35,171.



Fiscal year: 1996; Carry forward

from prior year: $35,171; Appropriated funds: 0; Interest earned

from government securities: $464; Total available: $35,635; Payments: 

$21,133; Balance at end of fiscal year: $14,502.



Fiscal year: 1997; Carry forward

from prior year: $14,502; Appropriated funds: $30,000; Interest earned

from government securities: $332; Total available: $44,834; Payments: 

$15,882; Balance at end of fiscal year: $28,952.



Fiscal year: 1998; Carry forward

from prior year: $28,952; Appropriated funds: $4,381; Interest earned

from government securities: 0; Total available: $33,333; Payments: 

$12,339; Balance at end of fiscal year: $20,994.



Fiscal year: 1999; Carry forward

from prior year: $20,994; Appropriated funds: 0; Interest earned

from government securities: $259; Total available: $21,253; Payments: 

$12,822; Balance at end of fiscal year: $8,431.



Fiscal year: 2000; Carry forward

from prior year: $8,431; Appropriated funds: $3,200; Interest earned

from government securities: 0; Total available: $11,631; Payments: 

$11,200; Balance at end of fiscal year: $431.



Fiscal year: 2001; Carry forward

from prior year: $431; Appropriated funds: $107,483[A]; Interest earned

from government securities: 0; Total available: $107,914; Payments: 

$107,914; Balance at end of fiscal year: 0.



Fiscal year: 2002; Carry forward

from prior year: 0; Appropriated funds: $172,000; Interest earned

from government securities: 0; Total available: $172,000; Payments: 

$171,551; Balance at end of fiscal year: $449.



Source: DOJs Civil Divisions Office of Planning, Budget and 

Evaluation.



[A] Consists of an initial appropriation of $10.8 million and 

supplemental funding of $96.683 million.



[End of table]



Funds Appropriated to the RECA Trust Fund for the Next 10 Fiscal Years:



The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002[Footnote 

14] provided funding for the RECA Trust Fund to cover a 10-year period-

-fiscal years 2002 through 2011 up to a specified maximum amount per 

fiscal year. In past years, Congress appropriated money each fiscal 

year. This act, instead, provided specified amounts for subsequent 

fiscal years 

2002 through 2011, obviating the need for new congressional action in 

each of those fiscal years unless the Congress determined that 

additional funding was necessary. Table 5 shows the Trust Fund 

appropriations established in law.



Table 5: Appropriations to Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund, 

Fiscal Years 2002 through 2011:



Dollars in millions.



Appropriations (fiscal year): 2002: $172; 

Appropriations (fiscal year): 2003: $143; 

Appropriations (fiscal year): 2004: $107;  

Appropriations (fiscal year): 2005: $65; 

Appropriations (fiscal year): 2006: $47; 

Appropriations (fiscal year): 2007: $29; 

Appropriations (fiscal year): 2008: $29; 

Appropriations (fiscal year): 2009: $23; 

Appropriations (fiscal year): 2010: $23; 

Appropriations (fiscal year): 2011: $17; Total: $655.



Source: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002.



[End of table]:



Funds Appropriated for Fiscal Years 2003 through 2011 May Be 

Inadequate:



According to estimates by CBO and RECA program officials, beginning in 

fiscal year 2003, higher funding levels will be necessary or millions 

of dollars in claims may be delayed. As shown in table 6, CBO estimates 

that there will be a shortfall of $101 million in the Trust Fund 

through fiscal year 2007, of which about $44 million will occur in 

fiscal year 2003. Overall, CBO estimates a net shortage of $78 million 

through 2011. 

Table 7 shows the RECA program estimate, which is similar to, but 

slightly higher than CBOs estimate. Overall, RECA estimates a shortage 

of 

$107 million through 2011. Both organizations agree that most of the 

funding shortfall will occur over the next 3 years.



Table 6: CBO Estimate of the Funding Shortfall for the Radiation 

Exposure Compensation Trust Fund for Fiscal Years 2002 through 2011:



Dollars in millions.



Estimated requirement; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2002

(actual): $172; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2003: $187; CBO estimates 

by fiscal year: 2004: $128; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2005: $87; 

CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2006: $56; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 

2007: $34; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2008: $26; CBO estimates by 

fiscal year: 2009: $24; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2010: $10; CBO 

estimates by fiscal year: 2011: $9; $733.



Current appropriations; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2002

(actual): $172; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2003: $143; CBO estimates 

by fiscal year: 2004: $107; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2005: $65; 

CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2006: $47; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 

2007: $29; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2008: $29; CBO estimates by 

fiscal year: 2009: $23; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2010: $23; CBO 

estimates by fiscal year: 2011: $17; $655.



Shortfall amount; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2002

(actual): 0; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2003: $44; CBO estimates by 

fiscal year: 2004: $21; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2005: $22; CBO 

estimates by fiscal year: 2006: $9; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2007: 

$5; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2008: -$3; CBO estimates by fiscal 

year: 2009: $1; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2010: -$13; CBO estimates 

by fiscal year: 2011: -$8; $78.



Source: The Congressional Budget Office.



Notes: CBO estimates there will be additional unfunded requirements 

after fiscal year 2011 and beyond that are not mentioned here. While 

the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002 provided 

funding through fiscal year 2011, Section 3(d) of the RECA statute, as 

amended, provides that the Trust Fund is to terminate in fiscal year 

2022.



According to CBO, in the absence of new legislative language, CBOs 

estimates should be considered preliminary. Final CBO estimates would 

reflect actual legislative language and CBOs then current baseline 

assumptions.



[End of table]:



Figure 3 shows the gap between the amount of funding currently 

appropriated to the Trust Fund and CBOs estimate through fiscal year 

2011.



Figure 3: Funding Shortfall between the Amount of Funding Currently 

Appropriated to the Trust Fund and CBOs Estimate through Fiscal Year 

2011:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]





RECP officials estimates through fiscal year 2011 are similar to, but 

slightly higher than, that of CBOs. According to program officials, 

recent trends indicate that projected claims will total about $762 

million for fiscal years 2002 through 2011. This would exceed the 

current total of annual Trust Fund appropriations by a total of about 

$107 million and CBOs overall estimate by $29 million. DOJs estimate 

agrees with that of CBO, in that most of the funding shortfall, about 

$72 million, will occur over the next 3 years. According to RECP 

officials, a shortfall of funding available in the Trust Fund in any 

given year can result in the claims going unpaid until funds become 

available the following year. For example, RECA officials said that in 

fiscal year 2002, funding was exhausted 3 weeks before the close of the 

fiscal year, and based on the shortfalls projected, funding is likely 

to be exhausted before the close of fiscal years 

2003 through 2005. Table 7 shows RECPs estimate of unfunded 

requirements for Radiation Exposure Compensation compared with the 

current Trust Fund appropriations as established in law.[Footnote 15]



Table 7: DOJ Estimate of the Funding Shortfall for the Radiation 

Exposure Compensation Trust Fund, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2011:



Dollars in millions.



Estimated requirement; DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 2002: $172; DOJ 

estimates by fiscal year: 2003: $176; DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 

2004: $135; DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 2005: $76; DOJ estimates by 

fiscal year: 2006: $203; Total: $762.



Current appropriation; DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 2002: $172; DOJ 

estimates by fiscal year: 2003: $143; DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 

2004: $107; DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 2005: $65; DOJ estimates by 

fiscal year: 2006: $47; DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 2007: $203: $29; 

DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 2008: $203: $29; DOJ estimates by fiscal 

year: 2009: $203: $23; DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 2010: $203: $23; 

DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 2011: $203: $17; Total: $655.



Shortfall amount; DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 2002: 0; DOJ estimates 

by fiscal year: 2003: $33; DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 2004: $28; DOJ 

estimates by fiscal year: 2005: $11; DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 

2006: $35; Total: $107.



Source: Department of Justice, Civil Division.



[End of table]



Spending on Program Administration Has Increased:



RECP officials told us that in addition to the significant increase in 

the number of claims submitted, RECP received an unprecedented number 

of telephone and written inquiries for forms and information, a 

development that has further stretched the programs operational 

resources. According to a budget official, this has led to upward 

pressure on the overall costs to administer the program. In an effort 

to keep up with the demand, program officials began adding additional 

staff in fiscal year 2000. Table 8, shows that RECPs full-time 

equivalent (FTE) staff levels and spending on program administration 

have increased in fiscal years 2001 and 

2002 commensurate with a resurgence of claims.



Table 8: Average Full-Time Equivalent Staff Levels and Administrative 

Costs for Processing RECA Claims for Fiscal Years 1992 through 2002:



Dollars in millions.



Total administrative costs; Fiscal year: 1992: $1.0; Fiscal year: 1993: 

$2.1; Fiscal year: 1994: $2.0; Fiscal year: 1995: $1.5; Fiscal year: 

1996: $1.5; Fiscal year: 1997: $1.2; Fiscal year: 1998: $1.1; Fiscal 

year: 1999: $1.1; Fiscal year: 2000: $1.3; Fiscal year: 2001: $2.1; 

Fiscal year: 2002: $3.0.



Government FTE staff; Fiscal year: 1992: 7.6; Fiscal year: 1993: 13.8; 

Fiscal year: 1994: 15.4; Fiscal year: 1995: 11.8; Fiscal year: 1996: 

11.2; Fiscal year: 1997: 11.8; Fiscal year: 1998: 10.9; Fiscal year: 

1999: 10.4; Fiscal year: 2000: 11.1; Fiscal year: 2001: 17.6; Fiscal 

year: 2002: 20.3.



Contractor FTE staff; Fiscal year: 1992: 0; Fiscal year: 1993: 0; 

Fiscal year: 1994: 0; Fiscal year: 1995: 0; Fiscal year: 1996: 0; 

Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998: 0; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; 

Fiscal year: 2000: <1.0; Fiscal year: 2001: 10.0; Fiscal year: 2002: 

19.0.



Contractor portion of costs; Fiscal year: 1992: 0; Fiscal year: 1993: 

0; Fiscal year: 1994: 0; Fiscal year: 1995: 0; Fiscal year: 1996: 0; 

Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998: 0; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; 

Fiscal year: 2000: <$.1; Fiscal year: 2001: $.5; Fiscal year: 2002: 

$1.0.



Source: Information provided by the DOJs Office of Program, Budget and 

Evaluation.



[A] Because RECP was implemented in April 1992, the government FTE 

staff levels and administrative costs for fiscal year 1992 only reflect 

the April 1992 to September 30, 1993, time frame.



[End of table]



Administrative Expenses May Have Exceeded Its Appropriations for Fiscal 

Years 2001 and 2002:



Since fiscal year 1993, funding for DOJ administration of the program 

has been provided in a separate appropriation account for Radiation 

Exposure Compensation administrative expenses. The administrative 

expense appropriation for the program was $1.996 million each for 

fiscal years 

2001 and 2002.



There is an outstanding issue with respect to the programs 

administrative expenses for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 in that spending 

may have exceeded its appropriations for those years. The 

Antideficiency Act provides that an officer or employee of the U.S. 

government may not make or authorize an expenditure or obligation 

exceeding an amount available in an appropriation or fund, or enter 

into a contract or other obligation for payment of money before an 

appropriation is made.16:



It is our understanding, on the basis of information provided to us 

during our review, that total administrative expenses were $2.1 million 

for fiscal year 2001 and $3 million for fiscal year 2002, while the 

appropriation for Radiation Exposure Compensation administrative 

expenses was 

$1.996 million for each of those fiscal years. Regarding fiscal year 

2001, it is our understanding that following an increase in the number 

of RECA claims filed, around July 2001, the increase in spending arose 

from a task order that was issued for $1 million to hire contract staff 

during fiscal years 2001 and 2002. These expenses were paid with funds 

from DOJs Legal Activities, Salaries and Expenses, General Legal 

Activities account. The additional staff was reportedly used to assist 

in processing claims. According to DOJ, an investigation has been 

initiated to ascertain if possible Antideficiency Act violations 

occurred with respect to the Radiation Exposure Compensation 

administrative expenses account.



Whenever an agency discovers evidence of a possible over obligation or 

over expenditure, it must investigate that evidence. If the 

investigation shows that the appropriation, in fact, is over obligated 

or over expended, the Antideficiency Act requires reporting the over 

obligation or over expenditure to the President and the Congress. OMB 

guidance on budget execution, including requirements contained in the 

Antideficiency Act, is included in OMB Circular A-11, Part 4 which 

requires, among other things, that agencies include in such reports the 

primary reason for the violation, a statement of any circumstances the 

agency believes to be extenuating, a statement of the adequacy of the 

agencys funds control system, and a statement of whether any 

additional action need be taken to prevent recurrence of the same type 

of violation. Given that DOJ has initiated an investigation, we will 

monitor DOJs investigation of possible Antideficiency Act violations 

in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 relating to the Radiation Exposure 

Compensation administrative expenses account and take appropriate 

actions, if necessary, at the conclusion of DOJs investigation.



Fiscal year 2003 appropriations contained several changes to the 

programs administrative expenses appropriation. First, the 

Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003,[Footnote 16] 

appropriated funds for the programs administrative expenses in DOJs 

Legal Activities, Salaries and Expenses, General Legal Activities 

account rather than in a separate appropriation. Second, the language 

of the administrative expenses appropriation was changed from a 

specified amount to a specified minimum amount. Specifically, whereas 

fiscal year 2002 appropriations provided for necessary administrative 

expenses in accordance with the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, 

$1,996,000, the fiscal year 2003 appropriation provides, in part, that 

not less than $1,996,000 shall be available for necessary 

administrative expenses in accordance with the Radiation Exposure 

Compensation Act. In accompanying Conference Report language, the 

conferees said that they expect the Civil Division to absorb any 

additional requirements for processing RECA claims from other resources 

available to the Civil Division.[Footnote 17]



Agency Comments:



We provided a draft of this report to the Attorney General for review 

and comment. The Justice Department advised us they had no formal 

comments. The Civil Division and the Justice Management Division 

reviewed the report for accuracy and provided technical comments which 

have been incorporated in this report where appropriate.



Conclusions:



Funding available to pay claims under the RECA may be inadequate to 

meet projected needs. Since the end of fiscal year 2000, the number of 

unadjudicated claims has grown 300 percent from 653 to 2,654, and 

nearly 3,200 new claims are anticipated during fiscal year 2003. Both 

CBO and DOJ estimate that money in the Trust Fund will be insufficient 

to pay all the claims that are projected to be approved over the 2003-

2011 period. For fiscal years 2001 and 2002, RECP officials spent more 

for administrative expenses than was appropriated. For fiscal year 

2003, Congress authorized DOJs Civil Division to absorb any additional 

funding required for administrative expenses above the amount 

appropriated. However, the availability of additional funds, if needed, 

for administrative expenses is contingent on the Civil Divisions 

ability to absorb any additional costs.



Recommendation:



We recommend that the Attorney General consult with the congressional 

committees of jurisdiction to develop a strategy to address the gap 

between current funding levels and the amount of funding needed to pay 

claims projected to be approved over the 2003-2011 period.



Copies of this report are being sent to the Attorney General; the 

Director, Office Management and Budget; and any other interested 

parties. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In 

addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAOs Web site 

at http://www.gao.gov.



If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please 

contact William Crocker or me at (202) 512-8777 or jonesp@gao.gov. 

R. Rochelle Burns, Geoffrey R. Hamilton, and Leo M. Barbour made key 

contributions to this report.



Paul L. Jones

Director, Justice Issues:



Signed by Paul L. Jones



List of Committees:



The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch 

Chairman

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate



The Honorable Judd Gregg

Chairman

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions

United States Senate:



The Honorable James Sensenbrenner, Jr.

Chairman

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives



The Honorable Billy Tauzin

Chairman

The Honorable John D. Dingell

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Energy and Commerce

House of Representatives:



[End of section]



Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:



To determine the outcomes of the claims adjudication process, including 

the number of approved and denied claims, the timeliness of the claims 

adjudication process, and the amount of money awarded, we interviewed 

Radiation Exposure Compensation Program (RECP) officials and obtained 

RECA-related case information from the Department of Justices (DOJ) 

Civil Divisions case histories database for fiscal years 1992 through 

2002. The Civil Divisions Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation 

(OPB&E) provided financial information. We discussed the basis for any 

major fluctuations with RECP officials. We did not independently verify 

the accuracy of the RECA data extracted from the database.



To determine the cost of administering RECP, we obtained data from 

OPB&E by object class for the end of fiscal years 1992 through 2002. 

The cost provided includes items such as personnel compensation and 

benefits, travel and transportation of persons, and printing and 

reproduction costs. To determine full-time equivalent (FTE) staffing 

levels, the office provided us with FTE staff levels for RECP at the 

end of fiscal years 1992 through 2002.



To determine the nature of expenditures from the Trust Fund, we 

evaluated annual Trust Fund activity from fiscal years 1992 through 

2002 provided by OPB&E. During our initial review of the RECP in 

2001, we verified that payments made were consistent with data 

contained in DOJs Civil Divisions case histories database. We did not 

revalidate the information from the database during this review.



To validate the estimates of future Trust Fund requirements, we met 

with Congressional Budget Office (CBO) officials and examined their 

source data, methodology, assumptions, calculations, and results. On 

the basis of our examination, we found that CBOs estimates were sound 

and reasonable. RECA program officials said that they are confident in 

the data necessary to support improved estimates for the next 3 years 

(fiscal years 2003 through 2005); however, beyond that, their best 

educated guess is to extend the slope of the funding curve out another 

5 or more years for RECP. We focused on DOJs administration of RECA 

from its inception in fiscal year 1992 through the end of fiscal year 

2002.



We conducted our review from August 2002 through February 2003, in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.



[End of section]



Appendix II: Summary of Key Radiation Exposure Compensation Program 

Provisions by Claimant Category:



Claimant category[A]: Uranium mine employees; Time periods: Any time 

from January 1, 1942-December 31, 1971.; Location: Colorado, New 

Mexico, Arizona, Wyoming, South Dakota, Washington, Utah, Idaho, North 

Dakota, Oregon, and Texas.; Amount of compensation: $100,000; Examples 

of diseases covered: Lung cancer and nonmalignant respiratory disease.; 

Other: Victims must have been exposed to at least 40 working level 

months of radiation or determine employment in a mine for 1 full 

year.[B]; Aboveground miners are included.; Additional states may apply 

for inclusion as a covered state..



Claimant category[A]: Downwinders; Time periods: A period of at least 2 

years from January 21, 1951-October 31, 1958, or for the period between 

June 30 and July 31, 1962.; Location: Certain Utah, Nevada, and Arizona 

counties downwind from the Nevada test site.; Amount of compensation: 

$50,000; Examples of diseases covered: Certain types of leukemia, lung 

cancer, multiple myeloma, lymphomas, and primary cancer of the thyroid, 

male or female breast, esophagus, stomach, pharynx, small intestine, 

pancreas, bile ducts, gall bladder, salivary gland, urinary bladder, 

brain, colon, ovary, or liver.; Other: For those exposed prior to age 

21, and subsequently contract any medically recognized form of acute or 

chronic leukemia, other than chronic lymphocytic leukemia, a period of 

only 1 year, from January 21, 1951 to October 31, 1958, is required 

[C].



Claimant category[A]: Onsite participants; Time periods: Designated 

atmospheric nuclear tests from July 16, 1945-December 31, 1962.; 

Location: Onsite testing areas include the Nevada, Pacific, Trinity, 

and the South Atlantic test sites.[D]; Amount of compensation: $75,000; 

Examples of diseases covered: Certain types of leukemia, lung cancer, 

and lymphomas, multiple myeloma, and primary cancer of the thyroid, 

male or female breast, esophagus, stomach, pharynx, small intestine, 

pancreas, bile ducts, gall bladder, salivary gland, urinary bladder, 

brain, colon, ovary, or liver (certain types).; Other: The payment to 

the victim may be offset by payments received by the victim from the 

Department of Veterans Affairs based on the same radiation-related 

illness..



Claimant category[A]: Uranium mill employees; Time periods: Any time 

from January 1, 1942-December 31, 1971.; Location: Colorado, New 

Mexico, Arizona, Wyoming, South Dakota, Washington, Utah, Idaho, North 

Dakota, Oregon, and Texas.; Amount of compensation: $100,000; Examples 

of diseases covered: Lung cancer, nonmalignant respiratory diseases, 

renal cancer, and other chronic renal disease, including nephritis and 

kidney tubal tissue injury.; Other: Victims must have worked for at 

least 1 year during the relevant time period..



Claimant category[A]: Ore transporter employees; Time periods: Any time 

from January 1, 1942-December 31, 1971.; Location: Colorado, New 

Mexico, Arizona, Wyoming, South Dakota, Washington, Utah, Idaho, North 

Dakota, Oregon, and Texas.; Amount of compensation: $100,000; Examples 

of diseases covered: Lung cancer, nonmalignant respiratory diseases, 

renal cancer, and other chronic renal disease, including nephritis and 

kidney tubal tissue injury.; Other: Victims must have worked for at 

least 1 year during the relevant time period..



Source: RECA and related regulations.



[A] Also includes victims survivors.



[B] Levels of exposure to radiation are referred to as working level 

months and are calculated by multiplying the number of months an 

individual worked in a particular uranium mine and the radon level in 

the mine during the period of employment.



[C] Prior to the enactment of the RECA Amendments, a separate claimant 

category existed for these victims. The category was called Childhood 

Leukemia.:



[D] DOJ lists the dates and locations of the atmospheric tests 

conducted by the federal government in regulations codified at 28 

C.F.R. Part 79. For claimant eligibility, Justice adds 6 months to the 

end of the designated time span for each of the listed test periods.





[End of table]



[End of section]



Appendix III: RECPs Claims Adjudication Process:



[See PDF for image]



[A] The RECP attorney may request additional supporting information 

before making a recommendation (for approval or denial) to the 

Assistant Director.



[B] As of July 10, 2000, based on the 2000 amendments, an applicant can 

file a claim for consideration up to three times.



[C] Applicants whose claims have been denied are permitted to refile 

their claims if (1) they provide information to correct the deficiency 

that was the basis for the last denial under the original RECA 

legislation or (2) they believe that they are now eligible as a result 

of the 1999 regulatory changes and/or the 2000 amendments.



[D] The Appeals Officer may (1) reverse the denial (award compensation 

to the claimant), (2) affirm the denial (deny compensation to the 

claimant), or (3) remand the case to RECP. The decision is equivalent 

to a negative determination for the other two options.



[End of figure]



[End of section]



FOOTNOTES



[1] RECA recognizes that the amount of money paid does not completely 

compensate for the burdens placed upon such individuals.



[2] P.L. 101-426, 104 Stat. 920 (1990).



[3] Early amendments included November 1990 amendments (P.L. 101-510, 

104 Stat. 1835, 1837) that among other things expanded eligibility to 

include onsite participants and October 1992 amendments (P.L. 102-486, 

106 Stat. 3131) that provided for the judicial review of denied claims.



[4] P.L. 106-245, 114 Stat. 501 (2000).



[5] U.S. General Accounting Office, Radiation Exposure Compensation: 

Analysis of Justices Program Administration, GAO-01-1043, 

(Washington, D.C: Sept. 17, 2001).



[6] P.L. 108-7, 117 Stat. 11 (2003).



[7] DOJ implementing regulations for the RECA program are found at Part 

79 of Title 28 Code of Federal Regulations (28 C.F.R. Part 79).



[8] The minimum radiation exposure level for uranium mine employees was 

reduced from a range of 200 to 500 WLMs to 40 WLMs. A WLM is a measure 

of radiation exposure. WLMs are calculated by multiplying the number of 

months an individual worked in a particular mine by the radon level in 

the mine during the time of employment.



[9] P.L. 107-273, 116 Stat. 1758 (2002).



[10] P.L. 100-321, 102 Stat. 485 (1988).



[11] P.L. 106-398, 114 Stat. 1654 (2000).



[12] In certain cases, awarded compensation may not actually be paid. 

For example, an eligible individual may refuse to accept payment or the 

victim may pass away before the money is disbursed and an eligible 

beneficiary cannot be located.



[13] RECA Section 6 (d) (3) excludes this time from the 12-month 

period. Processing time begins when a claim is received by RECP and 

ends at case disposition.



[14] P.L. 107-107, 115 Stat. 1012 (2001).



[15] Table 7 assumes RECA program resources consistent with the 

Presidents fiscal year 2004 budget request.



[16] P.L. 108-7, 117 Stat. 11 (2003).



[17] H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-10, at 607 (2003).



GAOs Mission:



The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 

exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 

of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 

of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 

analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 

informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAOs commitment to 

good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 

integrity, and reliability.



Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:



The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through the Internet. GAOs Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 

abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 

expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 

engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 

can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 

graphics.



Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as Todays Reports, on its 

Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 

files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly 

released products under the GAO Reports heading.



Order by Mail or Phone:



The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 

each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 

of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 

Orders should be sent to:



U.S. General Accounting Office



441 G Street NW,



Room LM Washington,



D.C. 20548:



To order by Phone: 	



	Voice: (202) 512-6000:



	TDD: (202) 512-2537:



	Fax: (202) 512-6061:



To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:



Contact:



Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov



Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:



Public Affairs:



Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.



General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.



20548: