Report to Congressional Committees

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

September 2001 RADIATION

EXPOSURE

COMPENSATION

Analysis of Justice's

Program

Administration

GAO-01-1043
Page i GAO-01-1043 Radiation Exposure Compensation

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 3

Scope and Methodology 10

Analysis of Processed RECA Claims 12

Certification of the Trust Fund Payments Appears Adequate 19

Views on RECP’s Outreach Activities Are Mixed 20

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 23

Appendix I Data on Refiled and Appealed Claims 26

Appendix II GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 28

Tables

Table 1: Summary of Key Legal RECA Provisions by Claimant

Category 4

Table 2: Number of RECA Claims Received From Fiscal Years 1992

Through 2000 13

Table 3: Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund Activity,

Fiscal Years 1992 Through 2000 15

Table 4: Average Processing Time for Approved and Denied

Applications for Fiscal Years 1992 Through 2000 16

Table 5: Average Number of Days to Process Approved and Denied

Claims for Fiscal Years 1992 Through 2000 17

Table 6: Average FTE Staff Levels and Administrative Costs for

Processing RECA Claims for Fiscal Years 1992 Through

2000 19

Table 7: Results of Appealed RECP Decisions for Fiscal Years 1992

Through 2000 27

Figure

Figure 1: RECP’s Claims Adjudication Process 8

Contents
Page ii GAO-01-1043 Radiation Exposure Compensation

Abbreviations

DOJ Department of Justice

FTE full-time equivalent

JMD Justice Management Division

NGO Nongovernmental organization

OPB&E Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation

RECA Radiation Exposure Compensation Act

RECP Radiation Exposure Compensation Program

WLM working level months
Page 1 GAO-01-1043 Radiation Exposure Compensation

September 17, 2001

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 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,1

 the President signed into law the Radiation Exposure

Compensation Act (RECA).2

 RECA established the Radiation Exposure

Compensation Trust Fund (Trust Fund), criteria for determining claimant

eligibility for compensation, and a program (administered by the Attorney

General) to process and adjudicate 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. Almost 2 years later, RECP began processing claims in April

1992. RECA has been amended several times,3

 most recently on July 10,

2000, when the President signed into law the Radiation Exposure

Compensation Act Amendments of 2000.4

 The 2000 amendments further

broaden the scope of eligibility for benefits coverage to include new victim

categories and modify the criteria for determining eligibility for

compensation.

The 2000 amendments also mandate that we periodically report to the

Congress on DOJ’s administration of the program. This report covers

program performance from 1992 to the end of fiscal year 2000 and (1)

determines the outcomes of RECP’s claim review and adjudication

process; (2) quantifies the costs to DOJ for administering the program; (3)

documents DOJ’s procedures to certify that funds are appropriately

disbursed from the Trust Fund; and (4) describes RECP’s outreach

 1

The amount of money paid does not completely compensate for the victim’s costs or

suffering.

2

P.L. 101-426, 104 Stat. 920 (Oct. 5, 1990).

3

Early amendments included November 1990 amendments (P.L. 101-510, 104 Stat. 1835,

1837), which among other things expanded eligibility to include onsite participants and

October 1992 amendments (P.L. 102-486, 106 Stat. 3131), which provided for the judicial

review of denied claims.

4

P.L. 106-245, 114 Stat. 501.

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-01-1043 Radiation Exposure Compensation

activities intended to inform potential claimants about and facilitate their

applying for compensation.

Through the end of fiscal year 2000, RECP has received 7,819 applications

for compensation. Roughly equal numbers of applications have been

approved and denied, awarding compensation to about 46 percent of the

claimants and denying compensation to about 46 percent. Approximately 8

percent of the applications were still pending at the time of our analysis.

RECA claims are most frequently denied because the disease contracted

by the victim is not specifically designated as eligible for compensation

under the RECA program. Treasury paid $245.1 million in compensation to

5,150 victims or their survivors, but later awards were not paid by the end

of fiscal year 2000 because the money in the Trust Fund was depleted.

Subsequently, funds were appropriated to pay these claims. Although lack

of funds may have prevented timely payment of compensation in some

cases, RECP generally processed claims in a timely fashion. RECP case

histories data showed that 89 percent of the claims were processed within

the mandated 12 months. According to RECP officials, the remaining

claims were not processed in a timely fashion because of mitigating

circumstances. For example, rather than denying a claim in certain

situations, RECP allowed a claimant extra time to find documentation to

substantiate his or her claim, which delayed adjudication of the case.

The costs for administering RECP have fluctuated from the first full year

of program implementation, fiscal year 1993, through fiscal year 2000. For

example, administrative costs were $2.1 million in fiscal year 1993 and $1.3

million in fiscal year 2000. Full-time equivalent (FTE) staff levels have

ranged from 15.4 in fiscal year 1994 to10.4 in fiscal year1999.

DOJ has procedures in place to certify that funds are appropriately

disbursed from the Trust Fund. Our review of the payment documentation

for 30 randomly selected RECA cases, where compensation was awarded,

indicated that all payments were made as authorized.

To identify and inform candidates of their potential eligibility for

compensation under the program and to help them apply for funds, RECP

engages in three primary outreach activities. The program has established

an Internet website,5

 conducts onsite visits to groups and organizations to

promote the program, and operates a toll-free telephone line for program

 5

The RECP website address is http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/torts/const/reca/index.htm.

Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO-01-1043 Radiation Exposure Compensation

queries. We spoke with 11 nongovernmental organizations (NGO) that

assist potential RECA claimants. These groups had mixed comments about

RECP’s outreach efforts. Although five organizations said that RECP had

made an effort to inform them about their eligibility for the program, eight

said that RECP had made no attempt to coordinate its outreach efforts

with them. RECP officials told us that they are looking into the concerns

raised by the NGOs and are actively exploring new techniques for meeting

the needs of claimants and others interested in the program.

In its comments on a draft of this report, Justice generally concurred with

our results.

RECA establishes 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 uranium mines. The law

established three claimant categories—uranium mine employees (those

who worked in underground uranium mines in certain specified states),

downwinders (those who were downwind from aboveground nuclear

weapons tests conducted at the Nevada test sites), and onsite participants

(those who actually participated onsite in aboveground nuclear weapons

tests). Table 1 summarizes the key provisions of RECA by type of claim,

prior to the RECA 2000 Amendments.

Background
Page 4 GAO-01-1043 Radiation Exposure Compensation

Table 1: Summary of Key Legal RECA Provisions by Claimant Category

Claimant

categorya Time periods Location

Amount of

compensation

Examples of

diseases covered Other

Uranium mine

employees

Any time from January 1,

1947-December 31, 1971.

Colorado, New

Mexico, Arizona,

Wyoming, or Utah.

$100,000 Lung cancer and

certain nonmalignant

respiratory diseases.

Victims must have

been exposed to

minimum levels of

radiation.b

Downwinders 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.

Certain Utah,

Nevada, and

Arizona counties

downwind from the

Nevada test site.

$50,000 All of the primary

cancers listed in

RECA, such as

leukemia and

lymphomas, multiple

myeloma, and primary

cancer of the thyroid.

Onsite

participants

Designated nuclear tests

from July 16, 1945-

December 31, 1962.

Onsite testing

areas include the

Nevada, Pacific,

Trinity, and the

South Atlantic test

sites.c

$75,000 Certain types of

leukemia and

lymphomas, multiple

myeloma, and primary

cancer of the thyroid.

Justice identifies

the test sites in the

RECA

implementation

regulations.

a

Also includes victim’s survivors.

b

Levels of exposure to radiation are referred to as working level months (WLMs) 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. Minimum WLM exposure for eligibility purposes

varied from 200 to 500 WLMs and is on the basis of the victim’s smoking history and age of diagnosis

with a compensable disease.

c

Justice 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.

Source: RECA and related regulations.

In addition to creating eligibility criteria for compensation, the law

stipulates that appropriated funds be held in the Trust Fund to pay claims.

By law, the Trust Fund is to be administered by the Secretary of the

Treasury but maintained by the Attorney General. The Attorney General is

also 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 issued a final regulation implementing RECP on April 10, 1992.

The regulation established RECP within Justice’s Civil Division and

charged it with administering claims adjudication and compensation under

the act. To file for compensation, applicants submit the appropriate claims

forms along with corroborating documentation to RECP, whose claims

examiners and legal staff review and adjudicate the claims. If the claim is

approved, Justice authorizes the Treasury Department to make payment
Page 5 GAO-01-1043 Radiation Exposure Compensation

from the Trust Fund. If the victim is deceased, compensation may be

awarded to the victim’s eligible survivors (e.g., the victim’s spouse or

children). Figure 1 shows RECP’s claims adjudication process, including

the procedures for refiling and administratively appealing denied claims.

If RECP denies a claim, it notifies the claimant in writing of the basis for

the denial and the claimant’s rights to refile or appeal the claim. Claimants

may refile a claim with new information to RECP up to two times. If

denied, claimants may file an administrative appeal to a Justice Appeals

Officer, who can affirm or reverse the original decision or remand the

claim back to RECP for further action. Applicants may also appeal denied

claims in the U.S. district courts. RECP officials said that through July 3,

2001, claimants sought a judicial remedy only eight times.

More recently, the Attorney General approved revisions to the regulations,

effective April 21, 1999, to assist claimants in establishing entitlement to

an award. The revised regulations modified eligibility restrictions

regarding the claimants’ use of tobacco. Prior to the revision, RECP would

apply stricter standards if the victim contracted certain qualifying diseases

and was a “heavy smoker” or “heavy drinker.”

6

 The revised regulations,

among other things, allow claimants to submit affidavits to establish

smoking use histories and to submit pathology reports showing specified

diseases. In addition, the changes permit applicants, whose claims were

denied prior to the implementation of these regulations, to file another

three times.

The RECA Amendments of 2000,7

 signed into law by the President on July

10, 2000, expanded the criteria for compensation, opening RECP to more

people and establishing a prompt payment period. Some of the major

changes include:

• permitting eligible aboveground uranium mine employees, uranium mill

workers, and individuals, who transported uranium ore, to qualify for

compensation; they are entitled to a payment of $100,000;

• increasing the geographic areas included for eligibility and extending the

time period considered for radiation exposure for uranium mine

employees;

 6

The revisions modify the definition of nonsmoker to include former smokers who stopped

smoking at least 15 years prior to the diagnosis of a compensable disease.

7

P.L. 106-245.
Page 6 GAO-01-1043 Radiation Exposure Compensation

• expanding the list of specified diseases that may qualify individuals for

compensation to include other types of cancer and also noncancers (e.g.,

salivary gland, brain, and colon cancer);

• decreasing the level of radiation exposure that is necessary to qualify for

compensation for uranium mine employees;8

• making certain medical documentation requirements less stringent for

potential claimants;

• eliminating distinctions between smokers and nonsmokers pertaining to

diseases such as lung cancer and nonmalignant respiratory diseases; and

• requiring the Attorney General to ensure that a claim is paid within 6

weeks of approval.

 8

The minimum radiation exposure level for uranium mine employees was reduced from a

range from 200 to 500 WLMs to 40 WLMs.
Page 7 GAO-01-1043 Radiation Exposure Compensation
Page 8 GAO-01-1043 Radiation Exposure Compensation

Figure 1: RECP’s Claims Adjudication Process

Claim

received by

RECP

RECP notifies

claimant of

approval and

authorizes the

payment of

claim by Treasury

Claims examiner

analyzes the

information and

recommends

approval or, if the

eligibility criteria

cannot be met,

denial

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

B

Yes

RECP attorney

reviews the

recommendation

and drafts a

decisiona

Claimant

notified of the

denial and the

reason for the

denialb

A

C

Is the claim

application complete

and appropriately

documented?

Does

assistant director

approve the

claim?a

Is required

information

received?

Receipt is

acknowledged

RECP requests

additional

information from

the claimant

and outside

organizations to

correct the

deficiency

If the information Is

not provided after

a second request,

the claims examiner

recommends

that claim be

denied
Page 9 GAO-01-1043 Radiation Exposure Compensation

a

The RECP attorney may request additional supporting information before making a recommendation

(for approval or denial) to the Assistant Director.

B

No

Yes

Applicant refiles

claim with RECPc

Returned to claimant

unfiled (not placed in

system) and explained

to claimant why it was

not refiled

Process for Refiling Denied RECP Claims

Process for Appealing Denied RECP Claims

Does claim

meet criteria of

previous denial or more

current criteria?

Process for refiling and

appealing denied claims

A

Yes

C

Case closed

Yes

No

Sent to RECP

Yes

Cover letter with

denial decision

sent to claimant

Yes

Independent

RECP appeals

attorney reviews

claim and

may do additional

research and

consultation

Does the

applicant appeal

the denied

claim?

Appeals attorney

drafts a decision

recommending

one of three

possible actions

Appeals officer reviews

the recommended

decision and makes a

determination to

reverse or affirm the

denial or remand It

back to the RECPd

Is the denial

reversed?

Is the denial

affirmed?

Is the

case remanded

to RECP for 

reconsideration?

Or Or
Page 10 GAO-01-1043 Radiation Exposure Compensation

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 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.

Source: Prepared by GAO based on RECP’s information.

In addition to RECA, other programs 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, in general,

provides monthly compensation to veterans who were present at certain

atomic bomb exercises, served at Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the post

World War II occupation of Japan, or were prisoners of war in Japan.9

 In

addition, on October 30, 2000, the President signed into law The Floyd D.

Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001.10 Title

XXXVI of this act establishes the “Energy Employees Occupational Illness

Compensation Program” to, in general, compensate covered employees

who contracted certain illnesses resulting from exposure to certain ultrahazardous 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. This would be

RECP’s administrative responsibility.

To determine the outcomes of the claims adjudication process, including

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

adjudication process, the primary reasons for denials, and the amount of

money awarded, we obtained and analyzed RECA-related case information

from DOJ’s Civil Division’s case histories database. Our analysis was done

on claims filed during fiscal years 1992 through 2000. Our analysis was

done using the case histories database, as of February 26, 2001. We also

analyzed claims payment information from the Civil Division’s Office of

Planning, Budget and Evaluation (OPB&E). We discussed the basis for any

 9

P.L. 100-321, 102 Stat. 485 (May 20, 1988).

10P.L. 106-398, 114 Stat. 1654.

Scope and

Methodology
Page 11 GAO-01-1043 Radiation Exposure Compensation

major fluctuations with RECP officials. While we did not independently

verify the accuracy of the RECA data extracted from the database, we did,

however, ask the Civil Division’s Office of Management Information, the

office that maintains the database, to complete a data reliability

questionnaire about the design specifications and documentation for the

database. The reliability questionnaire also posed questions about quality

controls and procedures used to ensure data reliability. Our analysis of the

questionnaire responses did not indicate any data reliability problems.

To determine the cost of administering the RECP and the FTE program

staff levels, we requested that OPB&E provide us with RECP

administrative costs by budget object class for the end of fiscal years 1992

through 2000. The cost provided includes items such as personnel

compensation and benefits, travel and transportation of persons, and

printing and reproduction costs. To determine FTE staffing levels, the

office provided us with FTE staff levels for RECP at the end of fiscal years

1992 through 2000.

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

evaluated annual Trust Fund activity (appropriations, interest earned on

investments in government securities, and payments to awarded

individuals) from fiscal years 1992 through 2000 provided by OPB&E.

To verify that compensation awarded by RECP was paid as authorized, we

randomly selected 30 individual payments from DOJ’s Civil Division’s case

histories database of 1,592 RECA payments made from fiscal years1996

through 2000. We then obtained financial documentation for each payment

from OPB&E, including (1) RECP’s payment authorization letter to

OPB&E, (2) the fiscal payment request invoice approval sheet from

OPB&E to the Justice Management Division’s (JMD) Financial Operations

Service, and (3) the payment certification summary generated from a JMD

financial database that shows that the Department of the Treasury made

payments electronically or by check to the authorized individuals. We

interviewed officials from RECP, OPB&E, and JMD to determine how they

authorize, process, and certify payments from the Trust Fund. Finally, we

interviewed officials from Treasury’s Financial Management Service to

clarify Treasury’s role in disbursing the awarded RECA compensation.

To determine the nature of RECP’s outreach activities, we interviewed

RECP officials who described the elements of their outreach efforts and

provided us with a list of the office’s outreach-related onsite visits that

could be identified from existing records. To obtain insights on RECP’s

outreach efforts, we conducted telephone interviews with a judgmental

sample of 11 NGOs that (1) had members who could be eligible for
Page 12 GAO-01-1043 Radiation Exposure Compensation

compensation under RECA or (2) provided assistance and information

about the program to potentially eligible candidates. We selected these

organizations from a list provided by RECP, an Internet search, and a list

of those who testified before the Congress in a RECA-related 1998

hearing.11 In addition, we asked officials from these organizations to

suggest other related groups for us to contact, some of which we

contacted.

As agreed, we focused our review on Justice’s administration of RECA

from its inception in fiscal year 1992 through the end of fiscal year 2000.

We began our review in October 2000 and performed our audit work from

January to August 2001 in Washington, D.C., in accordance with generally

accepted government auditing standards.

When RECP reviews and adjudicates a claim, the process ends in one of

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

Justice electronically submits a request for payment to Treasury. If denied,

applicants may refile their claims or pursue other avenues of appeal.

Through the end of fiscal year 2000, RECP received 7,819 applications for

compensation. During this period, RECP approved and denied roughly

equal numbers of applications, awarding compensation to about 46

percent of the claimants, and denying compensation to about 46 percent.

Moreover, approximately 8 percent of the applications were still pending

at the time of our analysis. RECA claims are most frequently denied

because the disease contracted by the victim is not specifically designated

as eligible for compensation under the RECA program. Through the end of

fiscal year 2000, $245.1 million was paid from the Trust Fund to 5,150

victims or their survivors, but some of the claims awarded by RECP were

not paid because money in the Trust Fund was depleted. Although lack of

funds may have prevented timely payment of compensation in some cases,

RECP generally processed claims in a timely fashion. Our analysis of

information from the case histories database showed that about 89 percent

of claims were awarded or denied within the mandated 12-month time

frame. The agency reported that the remaining claims were sometimes not

processed within the 12-month period due to mitigating circumstances,

such as claimants requesting extra time to find documentation to

substantiate their claims.

 11Radiation Workers Justice Act of 1998: Hearings on H.R. 3539 before the Subcommittee

on Immigration and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives,

105th Cong. (1998).

Analysis of Processed

RECA Claims
Page 13 GAO-01-1043 Radiation Exposure Compensation

Our analysis of RECA-related claims information from the case histories

database shows that from the April 1992 inception of the claims

adjudication program through the end of fiscal year 2000, RECP had

received 7,819 applications for compensation. As shown in table 2, there

were 3,627 uranium mine employee-based applications (about 46 percent

of the total); 3,140 downwinder-based applications (about 40 percent of

the total); and 1,052 onsite participant-based applications (the remaining

14 percent of the total).

Table 2: Number of RECA Claims Received From Fiscal Years 1992 Through 2000

Type of claim

Uranium mine

employees Downwinders

Onsite

participants Total

Approved 1,708 1,664 226 3,598

Denied 1,555 1,273 740 3,568

Pending 364 203 86 653

Total 3,627 3,140 1,052 7,819

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

Source: GAO’s analysis of RECA claims data from DOJ’s Civil Division’s case histories database.

Of the 7,819 claims filed, RECP approved 3,598 and denied 3,568. These

amounts represent almost an even split between approvals and denials—

about 46 percent for each. The remaining 8 percent of the claims were still

pending at the time of our analysis. RECP approved about 47 percent of

the uranium mine employee-based claims, about 53 percent of the

downwinder-based claims, and about 21 percent of the onsite participantbased claims.

Through the end of fiscal year 2000, applicants had filed claims amounting

to almost $600 million, and RECP had awarded (or obligated) about $269

million to individuals on the basis of these claims.12 Of the amount

awarded, only $245.1 million was paid through the end of fiscal year 2000

because the Trust Fund was depleted (see further discussion in the next

section). RECP awarded $170 million to eligible individuals based on

uranium mine employee applications (or about 63 percent of the total),

$83 million based on downwinder applications (or about 31 percent of the

total), and $16 million based on onsite participant applications (or about 6

 12In 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 surviving beneficiary cannot be located.

Equal Numbers of Claims

Approved and Denied
Page 14 GAO-01-1043 Radiation Exposure Compensation

percent of the total). Appendix I contains data on refiled and appealed

applications.

RECP denies claims when the applicants fail to meet eligibility

requirements established by RECA and the Department of Justice’s

implementation regulations. Our analysis of RECA-related information

from the case histories database shows that through the end of fiscal year

2000, RECP denied claims for compensation for 13 different reasons. The

most frequent reason for denial for all three types of RECA claims was

that the disease contracted by the victim was not specifically designated

as eligible for compensation under the RECA program (in about 46 percent

of the cases). By type of claim, the primary reasons for denial were as

follows:

• Uranium mine employee-based claims—The victim did not meet the

minimum exposure to radiation requirements (in about 53 percent of the

cases) or did not contract a disease that was eligible for compensation (in

about 36 percent of the cases).

• Downwinder-based claims—The victim did not contract an eligible

disease (in about 49 percent of the cases), was not physically present in

the designated areas during the required time period (in about 21 percent

of the cases), or was either under or over the required age when first

exposed to radiation (in about 17 percent of the cases).

• Onsite participant-based claims—The victim did not contract a disease

that was eligible for compensation under RECA (64 percent of the denied

cases) or did not qualify as an onsite participant (in 17 percent of the

cases).

According to OPB&E, through the end of fiscal year 2000, Treasury paid

about $245.1 million in awarded compensation to 5,150 individuals from

the Trust Fund. The number of individuals who received compensation

exceeds the number of claims awarded compensation. For example, in

certain instances where the victim was deceased, compensation was

awarded to the victim’s eligible children. On May 9, 2000, the amount of

money awarded to claimants exceeded the amount of funds available in

the Trust Fund. By the end of fiscal year 2000, 227 awards totaling $19.2

million had not been paid because money in the Trust Fund was depleted.

As shown in table 3, the Congress initially appropriated $30 million to the

Trust Fund in fiscal year 1992. Additional appropriations were made in

fiscal years 1993, 1997, 1998, and 2000. Money remaining in the Trust Fund

Applicants Denied

Primarily Because

Illnesses Are Not

Compensated Under the

Law

Lack of Funds Leaves

Some Awarded Applicants

Unpaid
Page 15 GAO-01-1043 Radiation Exposure Compensation

at the end of any given fiscal year is generally carried forward to the next

fiscal year. According to Justice officials, money on deposit in the Trust

Fund that is not needed in the short run for award payments may be

invested in interest-bearing U. S. Treasury securities. The paid interest is

then added to the account balance.

Table 3: Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund Activity, Fiscal Years 1992 Through 2000

Dollars in thousands

Fiscal year

Carry forward from

prior yearsa

Appropriated

funds

Interest earned from

government

securities Payments

Balance at end of

fiscal year

1992 0 $30,000 0 $22,454 $7,546

1993 $7,546 $170,750 $2,493 $57,390 $123,399

1994 $123,399 0 $2,300 $60,651 $65,048

1995 $65,048 0 $1,365 $31,242 $35,171

1996 $35,171 0 $464 $21,133 $14,502

1997 $14,502 $30,000 $332 $15,882 $28,952

1998 $28,952 $4,381 0 $12,339 $20,994

1999 $20,994 0 $259 $12,822 $8,431

2000 $8,431 $3,200 0 $11,200 $431b

a

The amount carried forward is equal to the sum of appropriated funds and interest earned, less

payments from the Trust Fund.

b

The $431,000 is the amount of money that was obligated, as of May 9, 2000, but not paid as of the

end of fiscal year 2000. According to data provided independently by Treasury and Justice, the

ending balance for fiscal year 2000 was $431,000.

Source: DOJ’s Civil Division’s OPB&E.

According to OPB&E, Justice requested that $21.7 million be appropriated

to the Trust Fund in fiscal year 2000; however, the Congress appropriated

$3.2 million. Combined with funds carried over from fiscal year 1999, a

total of $11.6 million was on deposit in the Trust Fund at the beginning of

fiscal year 2000.13 These funds were fully committed by May 9, 2000, and

payment of awards was deferred. RECP notified the eligible candidates by

letter that although they qualified for compensation, their award could not

be paid until additional funds became available. By the end of fiscal year

2000, payments for 227 approved claims amounting to about $19.2 million

were delayed.14 Subsequently, on December 21, 2000, the President signed

 13The $11.6 million is comprised of the approximately $8.4 million carried forward from

fiscal year 1999 plus the $3.2 million appropriated in fiscal year 2000.

14Payments of the obligated funds continued after May 9, 2000.
Page 16 GAO-01-1043 Radiation Exposure Compensation

into law an appropriation of $10.8 million for the Trust Fund, with the

stipulation that the money was only to be used to pay applicants who

qualified under RECA as it existed on June 1, 2000, prior to the RECA 2000

Amendments. As of June 2001, according to RECP, 70 of the 227 delayed

payments from fiscal year 2000 have been made—this amounted to about

$5.2 million. On July 24, 2001, the President signed into law a supplemental

appropriations act, which provided the Trust Fund with “. . . such funds as

may be necessary. . . .” to pay approved claims through the end of fiscal

year 2001.

The RECA legislation requires that applications be processed within 1

year. As shown in table 4, about 89 percent of the applications were

processed within 12 months.15 According to RECP officials, applicants may

request additional time to submit more documentation to support their

claims. We could not readily determine how many of the 692 applications

that were not processed within 1 year were due to such requests.

Table 4: Average Processing Time for Approved and Denied Applications for Fiscal Years 1992 Through 2000

Applicant Type

Processing time in monthsa

Uranium mine

employees

Downwinders Onsite participants Total Percent of

total

12 months or less 2,437 2,613 730 5,780 89

13 months 122 35 20 177 3

14 months 87 24 13 124 2

15 months 50 10 7 67 1

16 months 36 9 1 46 1

17 months 31 3 4 38 1

18 to 24 months 113 18 15 146 2

More than 24 months 63 7 24 94 1

Total 2,939 2,719 814 6,472 100

a

Appealed and pending cases have been excluded.

Source: GAO’s analysis of information from DOJ’s Civil Division’s case histories database.

Processing times for claims differed among the three applicant types. Our

analysis of information from the case histories database showed that for

fiscal years 1992 through 2000 the average processing time from the date

 15Processing time begins when a claim is received by RECP and ends at case disposition.

Further, appealed and pending cases have been excluded.

Most Claims Processed on

Time
Page 17 GAO-01-1043 Radiation Exposure Compensation

the application was filed until its disposition was 269 days for uranium

miner employee-based claims, 190 days for downwinders-based claims,

and 245 days for onsite participant-based claims.

As shown in table 5, the average processing times for approved and denied

applications varied by application type from fiscal year 1992 through fiscal

year 2000.

Table 5: Average Number of Days to Process Approved and Denied Claims for

Fiscal Years 1992 Through 2000

Applicant type

Uranium mine

employees Downwinders

Onsite

participants Average

Approved 251 185 324 224

Denied 291 198 217 243

Note: Approved and denied data were at the time of our review and only apply to claims that were not

appealed.

Source: GAO’s analysis of information from DOJ’s Civil Division’s case histories database.

RECP attributed fluctuations in the time required to process claims to the

unique characteristics associated with each claim and the different factors

involved in the review and application of the law for the three claims

categories. RECP told us that since the inception of the program, its policy

has been to assist claimants in any way that it can. In addition, rather than

denying a claim, RECP said that it allows the claimant additional time to

provide corroborating documentation.

RECP cited other reasons for delays in processing claims, including

RECP’s need, in certain cases, to gather medical records to address the

statutory restrictions on certain compensable diseases and in other cases

to gather the documentation necessary to establish that the victim meets

the radiation exposure eligibility requirements. 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

establish exposure.

Justice processed and adjudicated 496 claims that were subsequently

refiled. On average, these 496 claims were initially processed and

adjudicated within 317 days. For those claims that were refiled for the first

time, RECP took on average 258 days to process and adjudicate them.

Furthermore, for those 21 claims refiled for a second time, RECP took on

average 212 days to process and adjudicate them. When denied RECA

claims were administratively appealed to Justice, Justice took on average
Page 18 GAO-01-1043 Radiation Exposure Compensation

115 days to process and adjudicate appealed claims when it affirmed the

denials and 262 days when it reversed the denials.

As shown in table 6, RECP’s FTE staff levels and administrative costs have

fluctuated from the first full year of the program in fiscal year 1993

through the end of fiscal year 2000.16 In fiscal year 2000, RECP employed a

staff of 11.1 FTEs. Administrative costs were $2.1 million in fiscal year

1993, $1.1 million in fiscal year 1999, and $1.3 million for fiscal year 2000.

Costs as measured by the average number of applications processed per

FTE staff member and the average administrative cost for processing each

application has shown substantial variation for fiscal years 1993 through

2000. 17 The average number of applications processed per FTE ranged

from 61 in fiscal year 1998 to 210 in fiscal year 1993. The average cost for

processing applications per FTE ranged from $725 in fiscal year 1993 to

$1,667 in fiscal year 1998.

 16Administrative costs include items such as personnel compensation and benefits, travel,

rent, communications, utilities, printing and reproduction, supplies and materials, and

equipment.

17We excluded fiscal year 1992 because RECP was in effect for less than 1 year.

DOJ’s Administrative Costs

Fluctuated
Page 19 GAO-01-1043 Radiation Exposure Compensation

Table 6: Average FTE Staff Levels and Administrative Costs for Processing RECA Claims for Fiscal Years 1992 Through 2000

Fiscal year

1992a 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

FTE staff 7.6 13.8 15.4 11.8 11.2 11.8 10.9 10.4 11.1

Administrative costs (dollars in millions) $1.0 $2.1 $2.0 $1.5 $1.5 $1.2 $1.1 $1.1 $1.3

Applications processed during fiscal yearb1,898 2,897 2,091 1,417 1,092 803 660 705 1,179

Average applications processed per FTE

staff member

250 210 136 120 98 68 61 68 106

Average cost for processing RECA

applications

$527 $725 $956 $1,059 $1,374 $1,494 $1,667 $1,560 $1,103

a

Because RECP was implemented in April 1992, the FTE staff levels and administrative costs for

fiscal year 1992 only reflect the April 1992 to September 30, 1993, time frame.

b

Includes approved, denied, and pending applications. Because applications may not be completely

processed in the year that they were received, they are counted for each year that they continue to be

processed. This explains why the total number of applications shown in the table as being processed

from fiscal years 1992 through 2000 (12,742), exceeds the total number of applications filed during

the same period (7,819).

Source: GAO’s analysis of information from DOJ’s Civil Division’s case histories database and

information provided by OPB&E.

RECP officials said that the average cost for processing RECA applications

fluctuated because many of the claims RECP received when the program

began in 1992 were more complete than those received later. RECP

officials told us that these later claims were typically far more complex

than those initially processed, and RECP staff spent more time in assisting

claimants with establishing eligibility.

RECP officials told us that as a result of the RECA 2000 amendments,

claims are being received at a record pace, far exceeding even the initial

phase of operations in 1992. The officials said that RECP has also received

an unprecedented number of telephone and written inquiries and requests

for claim forms, program information, and information regarding the

status of claims. According to RECP officials, staff responding to a

significant number of inquiries regarding the status of funding to pay

approved RECA claims has stretched RECP’s operational resources

further. The officials told us that, to date, RECP has not received an

increase in administrative funds to accommodate its increased workload.

Justice has procedures in place to certify that funds are appropriately

disbursed from the Trust Fund. Our review of the payment documentation

for 30 randomly selected RECA cases, where compensation was awarded,

indicated that all payments were made as authorized.

Certification of the

Trust Fund Payments

Appears Adequate
Page 20 GAO-01-1043 Radiation Exposure Compensation

According to the law, moneys on deposit in the Trust Fund are to be used

solely to pay compensation to eligible RECA claimants. Treasury is to

disburse payments from the Trust Fund on the basis of authorization and

certification from Justice.

Justice has established procedures for authorizing and certifying the

payment of awarded claims from the Trust Fund. When a claim is

approved, according to Justice officials, RECP authorizes payment to the

eligible applicants. OPB&E obligates the funds, and JMD certifies the

approved claim for payment on the basis of the supporting documents.

JMD then electronically submits a request for payment to Treasury’s

Disbursement Center. Treasury confirms to JMD on a daily basis that it

has received the request and made payment as directed. A JMD official

told us that payment is generally made within 24 hours of JMD’s electronic

submission. At the end of each month, Treasury sends a list of

disbursements made for that month back to JMD, which then reconciles

the list with its own records.

On the basis of our review of a random sample of 30 of the approximately

1,592 RECA payments made from fiscal years 1996 through 2000 where

compensation was awarded by RECP (from the Trust Fund) to eligible

individuals, we found that the payments were made as authorized to these

individuals. We obtained and examined the financial authorization and

certification documents for each of these 30 RECA payments from

OPB&E. Using these documents, we traced RECA payments from

authorization by RECP, through obligation by OPB&E, certification by

JMD, and disbursement by Treasury. The monthly list of disbursements

submitted by Treasury to JMD contains the schedule payment numbers for

both electronic direct deposit and Treasury payments and also the

Treasury check number. Financial summary information from this

database allowed us to verify that all payments from our sample were

made as authorized. As a result, at the 95-percent level of statistical

confidence, we estimate that no more than 9 percent of the approximately

1,592 individual payments from which the sample was drawn could have

resulted in unauthorized payments.

To identify and inform people of their potential eligibility for

compensation under the program and to help them apply for

compensation, RECP engages in three primary outreach activities. We

spoke with 11 organizations that assist potential RECA claimants. These

groups had mixed comments about the extent of RECP’s outreach efforts.

Justice Has Procedures in

Place to Certify that

Payments Are Made

Appropriately

Trust Fund Appears to be

Used Appropriately

Views on RECP’s

Outreach Activities

Are Mixed
Page 21 GAO-01-1043 Radiation Exposure Compensation

RECP has established an Internet website, conducts onsite visits, and

operates a toll-free telephone number for program queries.

Internet website—According to RECP officials, the Internet website was

launched in November 1999 and is linked to Justice’s main website.

Claimants can download background information about RECA and related

programs, statistical information dealing with awards and payments, and

application forms. Claimants can also e-mail questions and requests for

information through the website. In calendar year 2000, there were 3,727

“hits” to the RECP website.

Onsite visits—Based on a review of travel records, RECP officials have

identified at least 36 outreach-related onsite visits that they have made

from fiscal years 1992 through 2000. The officials told us that in many

cases they did not maintain historical records of the specific organizations

or groups they visited or the nature of their outreach activities during

these visits. However, the summary information that RECP was able to

provide shows that these onsite visits were primarily made to the five

western states covered under the act—Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New

Mexico, and Utah. To inform potential applicants of planned onsite visits,

officials told us that they place advertisements on local radio stations and

in local newspapers. During these visits, the officials provide candidates

with program regulations, instruction booklets, and applications. The

officials told us that they explain the program, the application process, and

assist the candidates with completing the forms. RECP does not produce

any leaflets, flyers, or brochures that explain the RECA program for public

distribution.

Toll-free telephone Number—RECP maintains a toll-free number for

queries about the program and assigns a staff member and two alternates

to answer the telephone.18 RECP officials told us that contract personnel

assist with answering the telephone and routing the calls to the

appropriate staff members. According to RECP officials, the toll-free

number is included on RECP correspondence, applications, instruction

booklets, and the website, and it is also provided to potential applicants by

health-related organizations that may come into contact with them. Over

the life of the program, most of the queries have dealt with requests for

claims forms and the status of claims in process.

 18The toll-free telephone number is 1-800-729-RECP (7327).

RECP Engages in Outreach

Activities
Page 22 GAO-01-1043 Radiation Exposure Compensation

RECP officials told us that they initiated their outreach activities in 1991,

when they announced through press releases that RECP would be

conducting town hall meetings at various sites in Colorado, Nevada, Utah,

and Wyoming. RECP said that these first outreach meetings were an

attempt to reach wide audiences and inform them about RECA. Also,

RECP told us that they compiled mailing lists from meeting attendance

sheets, which were later used as the basis for mailing claims applications

packages to the meeting participants.

According to RECP officials, because a large percentage of the uranium

mine employee population were members of the Navajo Nation and

because of the language and cultural barriers, RECP began to focus its

outreach efforts on the Navajo Nation. RECP told us that from mid-1992

through mid-1994, RECP staff went out to various chapter houses of the

Navajo Nation in Arizona and New Mexico to conduct outreach meetings.

The attendance at these meetings varied from as few as 20 people up to

100 people. The RECP officials informed us that in May 1994, RECP staff

set up an office at the facilities of the Office of Navajo Uranium Mine

Workers in Shiprock, New Mexico. They said that this outreach office was

used by RECP until 1997. During this time, according to the officials,

RECP outreach efforts were concentrated in Shiprock and at the various

Navajo Nation fairs in Arizona and New Mexico.

According to RECP officials, they have also contacted organizations such

as the Health and Human Services’ National Institute of Occupational

Safety and Health; St. Mary’s Hospital in Grand Junction, Colorado; the

University of New Mexico Health Clinic in Albuquerque, New Mexico; and

the Miners’ Colfax Medical Center in Raton, New Mexico, to help publicize

the program. Program officials also reported that since RECP’s inception,

they have publicized the program through press releases.

We conducted structured telephone interviews with representatives from

11 NGOs that are involved with RECA-related activities in order to gather

their views on RECP’s outreach efforts. The NGOs that we contacted

included medical research institutes, Native American assistance groups,

an atomic veteran’s association, a uranium workers council, a RECA

reform coalition, an association of radiation survivors, and downwinders’

associations. Our interviews focused on the NGOs' experiences with

respect to RECP’s outreach efforts to inform potential applicants about

the program and how helpful RECP was in assisting claimants with the

application process.

Nongovernmental

Organizations Express

Mixed Views on

Effectiveness of Outreach

Activities
Page 23 GAO-01-1043 Radiation Exposure Compensation

The NGOs were generally mixed in their comments about RECP’s efforts

to inform them about the compensation program.

• Five of the 11 NGOs told us that RECP had made an effort to inform them

about potential eligibility for compensation under the program, but 8 of

the 11 said that RECP had made no attempt to coordinate its outreach

efforts with their organizations.

• Six of the groups said that RECP had succeeded in informing potential

claimants about the program from some extent to a great extent.

• Five groups said that RECP was somewhat to very responsive to their

written requests for information.

• Eight groups said that RECP was somewhat to very responsive to their

telephone calls.

• Four groups told us that RECP was somewhat to very responsive to their

e-mail queries.19

• Eight organizations were familiar RECP’s website and had used the

website to gather general program information and six used the website to

obtain claims applications.

The NGOs’ views of RECP’s efforts to assist potential claimants with the

application process also varied. Six of the organizations believed that

RECP was of little to no help in explaining the requirements for

documentation to substantiate applicant claims, but five believed that

RECP was generally to very helpful. However, six organizations claimed

that RECP was somewhat to very helpful in explaining the eligibility

criteria for RECA compensation, while four believed that RECP was not

very helpful. Regarding our telephone interviews with the NGOs, RECP

officials told us that they are looking into the concerns the NGOs raised

and are actively exploring new techniques for meeting the needs of

claimants and others interested in the program.

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

comment. On August 28, 2001, we met with a Department of Justice RECP

official (an Assistant Director of the Civil Division’s Torts Branch), who

provided us with consolidated comments from RECP. The Assistant

Director said that RECP generally agreed with our draft report. In

addition, the Assistant Director provided technical comments, which have

been incorporated in this report where appropriate.

 19These responses only include those NGOs that have Internet access.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation
Page 24 GAO-01-1043 Radiation Exposure Compensation

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

Office of Management and Budget; and any other interested parties. We

will also make copies available to others upon request.

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

James M. Blume or me at (202) 512-8777 or at jonesp@gao.gov. Key

contributors to this report are acknowledged in appendix II.

Paul L. Jones

Director, Justice Issues
Page 25 GAO-01-1043 Radiation Exposure Compensation

List of Congressional Committees

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy

Chairman

The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy

Chairman

The Honorable Judd Gregg

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions

United States Senate

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.

Chairman

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

The Honorable W.G. “Billy” Tauzin

Chairman

The Honorable John D. Dingell

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Energy and Commerce

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Data on Refiled and Appealed

Claims

Page 26 GAO-01-1043 Radiation Exposure Compensation

Applicants whose claims are denied may refile their applications with

Justice’s Radiation Compensation Program (RECP), appeal the denial to a

separate official within Justice’s Civil Division, or appeal the denial in U.S.

district courts. Claimants who choose to refile must provide

documentation to correct the deficiency previously noted by RECP. Also,

according to RECP, claims may be refiled by providing documentation to

establish eligibility (1) as a result of regulatory or legislative changes to

eligibility requirements subsequent to the denied application (e.g., changes

mandated by the Radiation Exposure Compensation Amendments of 2000

and/or those required by the July 1, 1999, Attorney General regulations), or

(2) under a different claim category (e.g., filing a downwinder-based claim

after being denied compensation on an onsite participant-based claim).

Our analysis of the RECA case-related information from the case histories

database showed that from April 1992 through the end of fiscal year 2000,

a total of 496 applicants refiled claims—395 were uranium mine employeebased claims, 70 were downwinder-based claims, and 31 were onsite

participant-based claims. Of these refiled claims, 250 were awarded

compensation, 116 were denied compensation, and the remaining 130

were still pending resolution, at the time of our analysis. Of the 116 denied

claims, 28 applicants refiled for a second time—all of these were uranium

mine employee-based claims. Of the 28 denied claims, 21 were awarded

compensation and the remaining 7 were still pending at the time of our

review.

Applicants may also administratively appeal denied claims to a separate

official (an Appeals Officer) within the Department of Justice’s Civil

Division. The applicants must do so within 60 days of the denial. Of the

3,568 claims denied by RECP, 710 (or about 20 percent) of the applicants

administratively appealed the decision to Justice, as shown in table 7. In

553 of these cases (or 78 percent of the cases), the Appeals Officer

affirmed the denials.

Appendix I: Data on Refiled and Appealed

Claims
Appendix I: Data on Refiled and Appealed

Claims

Page 27 GAO-01-1043 Radiation Exposure Compensation

Table 7: Results of Appealed RECP Decisions for Fiscal Years 1992 Through 2000

Type of claim

Appeal Uranium mine employees Downwinders Onsite participants Total

Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage

Denials reversed 104 31 22 10 15 10 141 20

Denials affirmed 220 66 196 89 137 87 553 78

Pending 9 3 2 1 5 3 16 2

Total 333 100 220 100 157 100 710 100

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

Source: GAO’s analysis of RECA claims data from DOJ’s Civil Division’s case histories database.

Uranium miner claimants represented about 47 percent of the

administratively appealed cases, downwinders about 31 percent, and

onsite participants the remaining 22 percent. The denials were affirmed

upon appeal for the vast majority of these cases.

According to RECP, once claimants exhaust their administrative remedies

within Justice, they may appeal their cases in U.S. district courts. RECP

records showed that from program inception in 1992 through July 3, 2001,

eight claims denied by RECP have been appealed to the district courts.

Two of these appeals were consolidated into one court case. The courts

affirmed RECP’s denials in three of the seven cases and remanded three of

the cases back to RECP for readjudication. RECP again denied one of

these three remanded cases, approved the claim in the second case, and

the third case was still pending RECP review, as of July 3, 2001. In the

seventh case, RECP reassessed and approved the claim.
Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgments

Page 28 GAO-01-1043 Radiation Exposure Compensation

Paul L. Jones, (202) 512-8777

James M. Blume, (202) 512-8643

Michael G. Kassack, Bethany L. Letiecq, David P. Alexander, E. Anne

Laffoon, Geoffrey R. Hamilton, Robert C. DeRoy, and Bassel Alloush made

key contributions to this report.

Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Acknowledgments

(182102)
The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are

$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the

Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also

accepted.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St., NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To

receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days,

please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will

provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Orders by Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an email message with “info” in the body to:

Info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

Ordering Information

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs