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 
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 period—fiscal years 2002 through 

2011 up to a specified amount per year—totaling $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 DOJ’s 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 Division’s ability to absorb any additional costs. 

RECA Trust Fund Appropriations and CBO Estimates (Dollars in millions) 

0

50

100

150

200

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Source: The Congressional Budget Office data.

CBO estimated requirements

Actual current appropriations

Appropriations and CBO Estimates (Dollars in millions)

Fiscal Year

Shortfall

Surplus

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 

Justice’s 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. 

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. 

Highlights of GAO-03-481, a report to 

Congressional Committees 

April 2003

RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION

Funding to Pay Claims May Be 

Inadequate to Meet Projected Needs 
Page i GAO-03-481 Radiation Exposure Compensation 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 3

Since Fiscal Year 2000, RECA Claims Increased Significantly, 

Processing Time Has Slowed, and the Number of Pending 

Claims Has Grown 7

Funding to Pay Claims May Be Inadequate to Meet Projected Needs 12

Spending on Program Administration Has Increased 16

Agency Comments 19

Conclusions 19

Recommendation 19

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 22 

Appendix II Summary of Key Radiation Exposure Compensation 

Program Provisions by Claimant Category 23 

Appendix III RECP’s Claims Adjudication Process 26 

Tables 

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

through Fiscal Year 2002 9

Table 2: Processing Time in Months for Approved and Denied 

Claims for Fiscal Years 1992 through 2002 10

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

Years 1992 through 2002 11

Table 4: Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund Activity, 

Fiscal Years 1992 through 2002 13

Table 5: Appropriations to Radiation Exposure Compensation 

Trust Fund, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2011 14

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

Exposure Compensation Trust Fund for Fiscal Years 2002 

through 2011 14

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

Exposure Compensation Trust Fund, Fiscal Years 2002 

through 2011 16

Contents 
Page ii GAO-03-481 Radiation Exposure Compensation 

Table 8: Average Full-Time Equivalent Staff Levels and 

Administrative Costs for Processing RECA Claims for 

Fiscal Years 1992 through 2002 17

Figures 

Figure 1: Map of RECA-Covered Areas 5

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

through 2002 and Fiscal Year 2003 Estimate 8

Figure 3: Funding Shortfall between the Amount of Funding 

Currently Appropriated to the Trust Fund and CBO’s 

Estimate through Fiscal Year 2011 15

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 GAO’s product. 
Page 1 GAO-03-481 Radiation Exposure Compensation 

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,1

 the Radiation 

Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) was enacted.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,3

including on July 10, 2000, when the RECA Amendments of 2000 were 

enacted.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 DOJ’s 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 2000.5

 For this report, we are 

updating (1) information on claims processing, (2) information on the 

 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 

Justice’s Program Administration, GAO-01-1043, (Washington, D.C: Sept. 17, 2001). 

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-03-481 Radiation Exposure Compensation 

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 DOJ’s Civil Division’s case histories 

database for fiscal years 1992 through 2002. To determine the cost of 

administering RECP, we obtained data from the Civil Division’s 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. 

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 program’s administrative 

expenses for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 in that spending may have 

Results in Brief 
Page 3 GAO-03-481 Radiation Exposure Compensation 

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 2003,6

 contained several 

changes to the program’s 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. 

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.7

The regulations established RECP within DOJ’s 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 

 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). 

Background 
Page 4 GAO-03-481 Radiation Exposure Compensation 

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

children). Appendix III shows RECP’s 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. 

DOJ’s 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. 
Page 5 GAO-03-481 Radiation Exposure Compensation 

Figure 1: Map of RECA-Covered Areas 

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; 

Test

site

CO UT

AZ

NV

ND

SD

WY

WA

OR

TX

NM

Uranium worker states

Downwind counties

Source: Department of Justice, Civil Division.

ID
Page 6 GAO-03-481 Radiation Exposure Compensation 

• 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;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 Act9

 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 

 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). 
Page 7 GAO-03-481 Radiation Exposure Compensation 

weapons. For example, the Radiation-Exposed Veterans Compensation 

Act of 198810 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 200111 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. 

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. 

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 

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

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

Since Fiscal Year 

2000, RECA Claims 

Increased 

Significantly, 

Processing Time Has 

Slowed, and the 

Number of Pending 

Claims Has Grown 

RECA Claims Increased 

Significantly 
Page 8 GAO-03-481 Radiation Exposure Compensation 

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 

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, 

Numbers of Claims 

Approved, Denied, and 

Pending 

Number of RECA claims filed

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

a

Estimate.

Fiscal year

3,200

3,345

3,822

837

408 358 394

551

827

1,207

1,340

1,898

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

2003a 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Page 9 GAO-03-481 Radiation Exposure Compensation 

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 

Category of claim 

Uranium mine 

employees Downwinders 

Onsite 

participants

Uranium mill 

employees 

Ore transporter 

employees Total

Approved 2,311 4,945 465 156 38 7,915

Denied 1,786 1,688 901 34 9 4,418

Pending 553 1,677 247 138 39 2,654

Total 4,650 8,310 1,613 328 86 14,987

Source: DOJ’s Civil Division’s case histories database. 

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

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

to claimants.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). 

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.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. 

 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 beneficiary cannot be located. 

13RECA 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. 

Claims Taking Longer 

to Process 
Page 10 GAO-03-481 Radiation Exposure Compensation 

Table 2: Processing Time in Months for Approved and Denied Claims for Fiscal Years 1992 through 2002 

Applicant type 

Processing time in monthsa 

Uranium mine 

employees Downwinders 

Onsite

participants

Uranium mill 

employees 

Ore 

transporter 

employees Total 

Percent 

of total 

12 months or less 2,808 5,773 1,039 105 25 9,750 79.2 

13 months 302 260 78 18 4 662 5.4 

14 months 196 158 45 14 6 419 3.4 

15 months 146 135 46 10 3 340 2.8 

16 months 113 88 26 10 3 240 1.9 

17 months 59 63 20 12 1 155 1.3 

18 to 24 months 318 126 64 19 5 532 4.3 

More than 24 months 148 19 42 2 0 211 1.7 

Subtotal over 12 months 2,559 

Total 4,090 6,622 1,360 190 47 12,309 100 

Source: DOJ’s Civil Division’s case histories database. 

a

Appealed and pending cases have been excluded. 

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. 
Page 11 GAO-03-481 Radiation Exposure Compensation 

Table 3: Average Number of Days to Process a Claim for Fiscal Years 1992 through 

2002 

Applicant type 

Uranium 

mine 

employees Downwinders 

Onsite 

participants 

Uranium 

mill 

employee

Ore 

transporter 

employee 

Average days to process claims 

End of fiscal year 

2000 269 190 245 a a 

End of fiscal year 

2002 327 244 263 459 392 

Increase in days 58 54 18 a a 

Source: GAO’s analysis of information from DOJ’s Civil Division’s Case Histories Database. 

a

Data not available. 

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

address RECA’s 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 
Page 12 GAO-03-481 Radiation Exposure Compensation 

establish proof of the new compensable diseases and illnesses added to 

RECA. 

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. 

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 

Number of Pending 

Claims Is Growing 

Funding to Pay 

Claims May Be 

Inadequate to Meet 

Projected Needs 
Page 13 GAO-03-481 Radiation Exposure Compensation 

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 

Carry forward 

from prior year 

Appropriated 

funds

Interest earned

from government 

securities

Total 

available Payments 

Balance at end 

of fiscal year 

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

1993 $7,546 $170,750 $2,493 $180,789 $57,390 $123,399 

1994 $123,399 0 $2,300 $125,699 $60,651 $65,048 

1995 $65,048 0 $1,365 $66,413 $31,242 $35,171 

1996 $35,171 0 $464 $35,635 $21,133 $14,502 

1997 $14,502 $30,000 $332 $44,834 $15,882 $28,952 

1998 $28,952 $4,381 0 $33,333 $12,339 $20,994 

1999 $20,994 0 $259 $21,253 $12,822 $8,431 

2000 $8,431 $3,200 0 $11,631 $11,200 $431 

2001 $431 $107,483a0 $107,914 $107,914 0 

2002 0 $172,000 0 $172,000 $171,551 $449 

Source: DOJ’s Civil Division’s Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation. 

a

Consists of an initial appropriation of $10.8 million and supplemental funding of $96.683 million. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 200214 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. 

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

Funds Appropriated to the 

RECA Trust Fund for the 

Next 10 Fiscal Years 
Page 14 GAO-03-481 Radiation Exposure Compensation 

Table 5: Appropriations to Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2011 

Dollars in millions 

Appropriations (fiscal year) 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total 

$172 $143 $107 $65 $47 $29 $29 $23 $23 $17 $655 

Source: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002. 

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 CBO’s 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 

 CBO estimates by fiscal year 

Fiscal year 

2002 

(actual) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total

Estimated requirement $172 $187 $128 $87 $56 $34 $26 $24 $10 $9 $733

Current appropriations $172 $143 $107 $65 $47 $29 $29 $23 $23 $17 $655

Shortfall amount 0 $44 $21 $22 $9 $5 -$3 $1 -$13 -$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, CBO’s estimates should be 

considered preliminary. Final CBO estimates would reflect actual legislative language and CBO’s 

then current baseline assumptions. 

Figure 3 shows the gap between the amount of funding currently 

appropriated to the Trust Fund and CBO’s estimate through fiscal year 

2011. 

Funds Appropriated for 

Fiscal Years 2003 through 

2011 May Be Inadequate 
Page 15 GAO-03-481 Radiation Exposure Compensation 

Figure 3: Funding Shortfall between the Amount of Funding Currently Appropriated to the Trust Fund and CBO’s Estimate 

through Fiscal Year 2011 

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

slightly higher than, that of CBO’s. 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 CBO’s 

overall estimate by $29 million. DOJ’s 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 RECP’s estimate of unfunded 

0

50

100

150

200

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Source: GAO analysis of Congressional Budget Office data.

CBO estimated requirements

Actual current appropriations

RECA Trust Fund appropriations and CBO estimates (dollars in millions)

Fiscal year

Range of shortfall

Range of surplus
Page 16 GAO-03-481 Radiation Exposure Compensation 

requirements for Radiation Exposure Compensation compared with the 

current Trust Fund appropriations as established in law.15

Table 7: DOJ Estimate of the Funding Shortfall for the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund, Fiscal Years 2002 

through 2011 

Dollars in millions 

 DOJ estimates by fiscal year 

Fiscal year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total

Estimated 

requirement $172 $176 $135 $76 $203 $762

Current 

appropriation $172 $143 $107 $65 $47 $29 $29 $23 $23 $17 $655

Shortfall amount 0 $33 $28 $11 $35 $107

Source: Department of Justice, Civil Division. 

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 program’s 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 RECP’s 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. 

 15Table 7 assumes RECA program resources consistent with the President’s fiscal year 2004 

budget request. 

Spending on Program 

Administration Has 

Increased 
Page 17 GAO-03-481 Radiation Exposure Compensation 

Table 8: Average Full-Time Equivalent Staff Levels and Administrative Costs for Processing RECA Claims for Fiscal Years 

1992 through 2002 

Dollars in millions 

Fiscal year 

1992a

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Total administrative costs $1.0 $2.1 $2.0 $1.5 $1.5 $1.2 $1.1 $1.1 $1.3 $2.1 $3.0 

Government FTE staff 7.6 13.8 15.4 11.8 11.2 11.8 10.9 10.4 11.1 17.6 20.3 

Contractor FTE staff 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1.0 10.0 19.0 

Contractor portion of costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <$.1 $.5 $1.0 

Source: Information provided by the DOJ’s 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. 

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 program’s 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 DOJ’s 

Legal Activities, Salaries and Expenses, General Legal Activities account. 

The additional staff was reportedly used to assist in processing claims. 

 1631 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1). 

Administrative Expenses 

May Have Exceeded Its 

Appropriations for Fiscal 

Years 2001 and 2002 
Page 18 GAO-03-481 Radiation Exposure Compensation 

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 agency’s 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 DOJ’s 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 DOJ’s 

investigation. 

Fiscal year 2003 appropriations contained several changes to the 

program’s administrative expenses appropriation. First, the Consolidated 

Appropriations Resolution, 2003,17 appropriated funds for the program’s 

administrative expenses in DOJ’s 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 

 17P.L. 108-7, 117 Stat. 11 (2003). 
Page 19 GAO-03-481 Radiation Exposure Compensation 

absorb any additional requirements for processing RECA claims from 

other resources available to the Civil Division.”18

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. 

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 DOJ’s 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 Division’s ability to absorb any 

additional costs. 

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 GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

 18H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-10, at 607 (2003). 

Agency Comments 

Conclusions 

Recommendation 
Page 20 GAO-03-481 Radiation Exposure Compensation 

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 
Page 21 GAO-03-481 Radiation Exposure Compensation 

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 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 22 GAO-03-481 Radiation Exposure Compensation 

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 Justice’s (DOJ) 

Civil Division’s case histories database for fiscal years 1992 through 

2002. The Civil Division’s 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 DOJ’s 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 CBO’s 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 DOJ’s 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. 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 
Appendix II: Summary of Key Radiation 

Exposure Compensation Program Provisions 

by Claimant Category 

Page 23 GAO-03-481 Radiation Exposure Compensation 

Claimant 

categorya

Time periods Location 

Amount of 

compensation 

Examples of 

diseases covered Other 

Uranium mine 

employees 

Any time from January 

1, 1942-December 31, 

1971. 

Colorado, New 

Mexico, Arizona, 

Wyoming, South 

Dakota, 

Washington, Utah, 

Idaho, North 

Dakota, Oregon, 

and Texas. 

$100,000 Lung cancer and 

nonmalignant 

respiratory disease. 

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. 

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 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. 

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

Onsite participants Designated 

atmospheric nuclear 

tests from July 16, 

1945-December 31, 

1962. 

Onsite testing 

areas include the 

Nevada, Pacific, 

Trinity, and the 

South Atlantic test 

sites.d

$75,000 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). 

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. 

Appendix II: Summary of Key Radiation 

Exposure Compensation Program Provisions 

by Claimant Category 
Appendix II: Summary of Key Radiation 

Exposure Compensation Program Provisions 

by Claimant Category 

Page 24 GAO-03-481 Radiation Exposure Compensation 

Claimant 

categorya

Time periods Location 

Amount of 

compensation 

Examples of 

diseases covered Other 

Uranium mill 

employees 

Any time from January 

1, 1942-December 31, 

1971. 

Colorado, New 

Mexico, Arizona, 

Wyoming, South 

Dakota, 

Washington, Utah, 

Idaho, North 

Dakota, Oregon, 

and Texas. 

$100,000 Lung cancer, 

nonmalignant 

respiratory diseases, 

renal cancer, and 

other chronic renal 

disease, including 

nephritis and kidney 

tubal tissue injury. 

Victims must have 

worked for at least 1 

year during the 

relevant time period. 

Ore transporter 

employees 

Any time from January 

1, 1942-December 31, 

1971. 

Colorado, New 

Mexico, Arizona, 

Wyoming, South 

Dakota, 

Washington, Utah, 

Idaho, North 

Dakota, Oregon, 

and Texas. 

$100,000 Lung cancer, 

nonmalignant 

respiratory diseases, 

renal cancer, and 

other chronic renal 

disease, including 

nephritis and kidney 

tubal tissue injury. 

Victims must have 

worked for at least 1 

year during the 

relevant time period. 

Source: RECA and related regulations. 

a

Also includes victim’s 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. 
Appendix II: Summary of Key Radiation 

Exposure Compensation Program Provisions 

by Claimant Category 

Page 25 GAO-03-481 Radiation Exposure Compensation 
Appendix III: RECP’s Claims Adjudication 

Process 

Page 26 GAO-03-481 Radiation Exposure Compensation 

Appendix III: RECP’s Claims Adjudication 

Process 

 Source: Prepared by GAO based on RECP's data.
Appendix III: RECP’s Claims Adjudication 

Process 

Page 27 GAO-03-481 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

As of July 10, 2000, based on the 2000 amendments, an applicant can file a claim for consideration 

up to three times. 
Appendix III: RECP’s Claims Adjudication 

Process 

Page 28 GAO-03-481 Radiation Exposure Compensation 

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. 

(440153) 
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and 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. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext 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 “Today’s 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. 

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 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs