United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

September 7, 2007 

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy 

Chairman 

The Honorable Arlen Specter 

Ranking Member 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Chairman 

The Honorable Lamar S. Smith 

Ranking Member 

Committee on the Judiciary 

House of Representatives 

Subject: Radiation Exposure Compensation Act: Program Status 

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

weapons tests as it built up its Cold War nuclear arsenal. Around this same time 

period, the United States also conducted underground uranium-mining operations 

and related activities, which were critical to the production of the atomic weapons. 

Many people were exposed to radiation resulting from the nuclear weapons 

development and testing program, and such exposure is presumed to have produced 

an increased incidence of certain serious diseases, including various types of cancer. 

To make partial restitution to these individuals, or their eligible surviving 

beneficiaries, for their hardships associated with the radiation exposure, the 

Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) was enacted on October 15, 1990.1

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), which is administered by its 

Civil Division’s Torts Branch. RECP began processing claims in April 1992. 

 1

Pub. L. No. 101-426, 104 Stat. 920 (1990). RECA recognizes that the amount of money paid does not completely 

compensate for the burdens placed upon such individuals. 

GAO-07-1037R Radiation Exposure Compensation 
RECA has been amended various times,2

 including on July 10, 2000, when the 

Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2000 (RECA Amendments of 

2000) were enacted.3

 The RECA Amendments of 2000 broadened the scope of 

eligibility for benefits to include two new occupationally exposed claimant categories 

(uranium mill workers and uranium ore transporters), expanding both the time 

periods and geographic areas covered, and adding compensable diseases, thus

allowing more individuals to be eligible to qualify. The RECA Trust Fund is scheduled 

to terminate in 2022 pursuant to a sunset provision in the legislation. The RECA 

Amendments of 2000 also mandated that we report to Congress on DOJ’s 

administration of RECA not later than 18 months after the enactment of the 

amendments and every 18 months thereafter.4

 We have reported three times 

previously on DOJ’s administration of RECA.5 This report updates information on 

DOJ’s administration of RECA including 

• the outcome of the claims adjudication process, including the number and 

status of claims approved, denied, and pending since RECP began in April 

1992; 

• average processing time for claims; and 

• RECP’s current estimates of the number of future claims to be paid from the 

RECA Trust Fund, associated funding requirements, and RECP administrative 

costs. 

To provide updated information on the claims adjudication process, we interviewed 

RECP officials, obtained responses to our written inquiries, and obtained RECArelated case information for fiscal years 1992 through 2007 (as of June 30) from DOJ’s 

Civil Division’s case histories database. According to RECP, the information provided 

was obtained from the same data sources that we had previously determined to be 

reliable. We did not revalidate the data from these sources; we believe they are 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this update. We also interviewed officials in 

the Civil Division’s Office of Management Information (OMI), the office that 

maintains the database, and RECP, the office that uses information contained in the 

database, to obtain updated information about the database. We specifically inquired 

 2

Amendments included the November 1990 amendments (Pub. L. No.101-510, 104 Stat.1835, 1837) that, among 

other things, expanded eligibility to include on-site participants; the October 1992 amendments (Pub. L. No. 

102-486, 106 Stat. 3131) that provided for the judicial review of denied claims; and the November 2002

amendments (Pub. L. No. 107-273, 116 Stat.1758) that, among other things, eliminated the requirement for uranium

workers diagnosed with lung cancer to submit medical evidence of a non-malignant respiratory disease because 

this requirement had the unintended effect of excluding most lung cancer claimants from establishing eligibility 

for compensation. 

3

Pub. L. No. 106-245, 114 Stat. 501 (2000). 

4

Section 11007 of the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act (Pub. L. No. 107-273, 

116 Stat. 1758, 1818 (2002)) made a technical amendment to the GAO reporting requirement provisions by striking 

such reporting provision in the RECA Amendments of 2000 and enacting the same reporting requirement 

provision at a different location within RECA. 

5

GAO, Radiation Exposure Compensation: Analysis of Justice’s Program Administration, GAO-01-1043

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 17, 2001); GAO, Radiation Exposure Compensation: Funding to Pay Claims May Be 

Inadequate to Meet Projected Needs, GAO-03-481 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 14, 2003); and GAO, Radiation

Exposure Compensation Act: Program Status, GAO-05-1002R (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 2005). 

Page 2 GAO-07-1037R Radiation Exposure Compensation 
as to whether any changes had occurred in the design specifications and 

documentation of the database, quality controls and procedures used to help ensure 

data reliability, or quality and usability of the data. On the basis of information

obtained from OMI and RECP officials, we did not identify any data reliability issues. 

For information on average claim-processing times, we received data from the case 

histories database, interviewed RECP program officials, reviewed the 2007 and 2008 

performance budget submissions to Congress for DOJ’s Civil Division and RECA 

Trust Fund, and reviewed the results of the Office of Management and Budget’s 

(OMB) evaluation of RECP using OMB’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART).6

We then compared RECP’s average claim-processing times for fiscal years 2004 

through 2006, and 2007 (as of June 30). 

To provide updated information on RECP’s estimates of the number of future claims 

to be paid from the RECA Trust Fund, including associated funding requirements, 

and on RECP administrative costs, we obtained these data from the Civil Division’s 

Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation (OPBE). We also obtained an explanation 

from OPBE of the method and mathematical model used to develop these estimates. 

Estimates of future claims were limited to claims paid from the Trust Fund because 

some RECA claims are paid through a program administered by the Department of 

Labor. 

We conducted our review from May 2007 through August 2007 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Results in Brief

From April 1992 through June 2007, RECP authorized payments totaling $1.2 billion 

for 18,110 claims. Almost half of the $1.2 billion was paid to claimants who lived 

downwind of the Nevada Test Site during nuclear weapons testing. The 18,110 claims 

represented about two-thirds of the 26,550 claims filed since RECP began in April 

1992. The remaining one-third of the claims were denied, because RECA’s eligibility 

criteria were not satisfied or pending. In fiscal year 2001, the number of claims 

peaked at 3,822—the highest number of claims filed yearly since RECP began in 

1992—following the RECA Amendments of 2000 that, among other things, broadened 

the scope of eligibility for benefits. Since fiscal year 2001, the number of claims filed 

with RECP has declined. 

RECP’s average claim-processing times for each individual category of claims have 

decreased over the 4-year period ending June 30, 2007. In fiscal year 2006, RECP’s 

overall average claim-processing time across all claimant categories was 339 days, 

 6

Using this tool, OMB evaluated RECP in fiscal year 2006 in the areas of program purpose and design, strategic 

planning, program management, and program results and accountability. OMB rated RECP as performing 

adequately.

Page 3 GAO-07-1037R Radiation Exposure Compensation 
which was 42 days longer than its performance goal for that year to reduce average 

claim-processing time across all types of claims to 297 days. 

Starting in fiscal year 2007 through the scheduled termination of the RECA Trust 

Fund in 2022, OPBE estimates that RECP will receive about 5,560 additional claims 

and pay an additional $248.3 million from the RECA Trust Fund to individuals who 

lived in certain counties downwind of the Nevada Test Site and individuals who were 

present at test site locations and participated in aboveground nuclear weapons 

testing.7

 Over this time period, the number of claims OPBE estimates that RECP will 

receive from these individuals and the funding needed to pay their approved claims 

are expected to decline, according to OPBE’s projections. Funding to administer 

RECP has been generally stable over the last 5 years, averaging about $2.5 million 

each year. 

Background 

RECA established a procedure to make partial restitution to eligible individuals who 

contracted serious diseases, such as certain types of cancers, presumably resulting 

from exposure to radiation from aboveground nuclear tests or as a result of their 

employment in the uranium industry. These individuals are referred to as 

(1) downwinders (persons who lived in certain counties downwind of the Nevada 

Test Site); (2) on-site participants (persons who were present at test site locations 

and participated in aboveground nuclear weapons testing); and (3) above– and 

underground uranium miners, uranium mill workers, and ore transporters (persons 

who were employed in the uranium industry for at least 1 year and, in the case of 

uranium miners, were exposed to certain specified levels of radiation). Figure 1 

shows the current geographic areas under RECA that represent the scope of 

eligibility for benefits coverage. 

 7

For purposes of this report, the other three claimant categories—uranium miners, uranium millers, and ore

transporters—are excluded from OPBE’s estimates of future claims and funding requirements because the Ronald

W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 mandated that approved claims in these 

claimant categories be compensated through the Department of Labor’s Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Fund, although RECP would continue to adjudicate their claims [Pub. L. No. 108-375,118 Stat.1811, 

2187-88 (2004)].

Page 4 GAO-07-1037R Radiation Exposure Compensation 
Figure 1: Map of RECA-Covered Areas 

Downwind counties

Uranium worker states

Source: Department of Justice, Civil Division.

Overlapping uranium worker states and downwind counties

Ore.

Idaho

Wyo.

N.Mex.

Colo.

N.Dak.

S.Dak.

Tex.

Wash.

Utah

Ariz.

Nev.

Test site

In addition to creating eligibility criteria for compensation, RECA created a Trust 

Fund from which to pay claims. The Attorney General is responsible for reviewing 

claims to determine whether claimants qualify for compensation and establishing 

procedures for paying claims. To discharge these responsibilities, the Attorney 

General has issued implementing regulations.8

 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 

form along with corroborating documentation to RECP, whose claims examiners and 

legal staff review and adjudicate the claims. RECP’s review of claims results in either 

approval or denial. If RECP approves a claim, a letter is sent notifying the person of 

the approval and enclosing an “acceptance of payment” form for the claimant to 

return to RECP. According to program officials, upon receipt of a signed acceptance 

of payment form and corroboration of banking information from the claimant’s 

financial institution, DOJ authorizes the Department of the Treasury or the 

Department of Labor, depending on the type of claim, to make payment to the 

claimant. The Treasury Department makes payments to downwinder and on-site 

participant claimants from the RECA Trust Fund. Payments from the Labor 

Department to uranium miners, uranium millers, and ore transporters come from the 

 8

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). 

Page 5 GAO-07-1037R Radiation Exposure Compensation 
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Fund.9

 If RECP denies a claim, 

the claimant may pursue the following two administrative options before seeking 

judicial review of the denied claim, according to program officials. First, denied 

claimants may refile their claims up to three times in cases where they obtain new 

supporting documentation10 that they did not have when their claims were previously 

filed and that they believe might correct the deficiency that resulted in the denial. 

Second, denied claimants may appeal the denial, in writing, within 60 days of the date 

of the decision to an appeals officer within the Civil Division, who may either affirm 

or reverse the decision, or remand the claim to RECP for further action when 

appropriate. After exhausting the administrative appeal process, denied claimants 

may seek judicial review of the claim in a U.S. district court. For a flowchart of the 

RECA claims adjudication process, including the procedures for refiling and 

administratively appealing denied claims, see appendix I. 

In September 2002, in response to congressional direction,11 the Health Resources and 

Services Administration (HRSA), a division of the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, asked the National Research Council (NRC) to convene a 

committee to assess recent scientific evidence associating radiation exposure with 

cancers or other human health effects and determine whether other groups of people 

or additional geographic areas should be covered under RECA.12 In April 2005, NRC’s 

committee published its report entitled Assessment of the Scientific Information for 

the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program, which included among 

its recommendations that Congress establish a new, science-based process to 

determine whether persons from other states and territories should be eligible for 

coverage and compensation under RECA. The new science-based process would 

assess eligibility using a method called “probability of causation/assigned share,” 

which is a mathematical formula representing the fraction of a group of identical 

persons in whom a radiation-induced cancer would be expected to occur at some 

specified time after receiving a dose of radiation. Eligibility for compensation would 

be based on a scientific determination for each claimant of whether his or her illness 

was caused by exposure to radiation. According to NRC’s committee report, the 

 9

The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program compensates certain workers of the

Department of Energy (and certain contractors and subcontractors) who work or worked at nuclear facilities or 

nuclear weapons testing sites or their survivors, as well as RECA-covered uranium miners, millers, and ore 

transporters injured by exposure to ultrahazardous materials, or their survivors. This program’s authorizing 

statute, the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, enacted on October 30, 2000, 

made a permanent appropriation of such amounts as may be needed to pay benefits. Pub. L. No. 106-398, 

114 Stat. 1654 (2000). 

10As of July 10, 2000, on the basis of the RECA Amendments of 2000, a claimant can resubmit a claim for 

consideration up to three times. 

11H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 107-593, at 158 (2002). 

12HRSA provides national leadership, program resources, and services needed to improve access to quality health 

care for uninsured, underserved, and special needs populations. More detailed information on HRSA can be 

obtained through the HRSA Web site at www.hrsa.gov. NRC is part of the National Academies, which also

comprise the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. 

They are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology and health policy advice under a 

congressional charter. See www.nationalacademies.org. 

Page 6 GAO-07-1037R Radiation Exposure Compensation 
scientific evidence indicates that in most cases it is unlikely that exposure to 

radiation from fallout was a substantial contributing cause to developing cancer. 

The Conference Report

13 that accompanied the fiscal year 2006 Science, State, 

Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,14 enacted on November 

22, 2005, contained language directing DOJ to submit a report to the Committees on 

Appropriations, within 90 days of passage of the appropriations act, that detailed 

actions the department and Congress could take to implement the recommendations 

contained in NRC’s committee report. In April 2006, DOJ submitted a report to the 

Appropriations Committees in which it concluded that on the basis of reviewing the 

recommendations contained in the NRC’s committee report, it would not have 

authority to take action to implement the recommendations because doing so would 

entail a complete revision of RECA, which would require legislative action. 

According to RECP, Congress has taken no action to implement the 

recommendations contained in NRC’s 2005 report. RECP plans to continue 

monitoring the activities of the National Academies of Sciences and similar 

organizations that seek to revise RECA’s eligibility criteria. 

 

RECP Has Approved Over 18,000 Claims, Awarded $1.2 Billion to Over 

24,000 Eligible Claimants, and Experienced a General Decline in the Number 

of Claims Filed Since 2001 

$1.2 Billion Paid in Approved Claims 

As of June 30, 2007, RECP had approved 18,110 claims and a total of $1.2 billion had 

been awarded to over 24,000 claimants15 in all five claimant categories since RECP 

began in April 1992. The number of approved claims represents 68 percent of the 

26,550 claims filed during this time period. Downwinder claimants constituted the 

largest claimant category of award recipients. Of the $1.2 billion paid out, 

$561 million, or 46 percent, was paid to downwinder claimants, as shown in figure 2. 

 13H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 109-272 (2005). 

14Pub. L. No. 109-108, 119 Stat. 2290 (2005). 

15According to RECP, many claims include multiple eligible beneficiaries such as the children or grandchildren of 

a deceased uranium worker, on-site participant, or downwinder claimant. Because of that, the number of award 

recipients is greater than the number of claims awarded. The lump sum payment award is divided equally among

the recipients. 

Page 7 GAO-07-1037R Radiation Exposure Compensation 
Figure 2: Downwinder Claimants Received Almost Half of the $1.2 Billion in 

Payments 

7%

Downwinder

($561 million)

Uranium miner

($455 million)

Uranium miller

($100 million)

On-site participant

($80 million) 

2%

Ore transportation

($22 million) 

Source: DOJ’s Civil Division.

37%

46%

8%

Among the claims not approved since RECP began in April 1992, 7,539 were denied 

because RECA’s eligibility criteria were not satisfied, and 901 were pending 

adjudication, as of June 30, 2007. According to RECP data, in about 40 percent 

(2,916) of the claims denied, claimants continued to pursue a compensation award—

1,856 refiled their claims at least once; 1,048 pursued an administrative appeal; and of 

those who filed an administrative appeal, 12 sought judicial review.16 Table 1 shows 

the number of claims approved, denied, and pending by claimant category. 

 16Of the 12 claimants who sought judicial review, 2 of the claimants withdrew their claims after filing them with 

district court. One claimant voluntarily withdrew the claim immediately after filing it in district court and 

according to a RECP official, the claimant decided to refile the claim with RECP after obtaining new evidence to

correct the deficiency that resulted in RECP’s denial of the claim. The other claimant withdrew the claim after the

district court dismissed it for failure to follow proper filing procedures. 

Page 8 GAO-07-1037R Radiation Exposure Compensation 
Table 1: Claims Approved, Denied, and Pending from April 1992 through 

June 30, 2007, by Claimant Category

Claimant category Approved Denied Pending 

Total number

of claims

Downwinder 11,219 3,176 541 14,936

Uranium miner 4,560 2,661 208 7,429

On-site participant 1,114 1,393 112 2,619

Uranium miller 1,000 239 33 1,272

Ore transporter 217 70 7 294

Total 18,110 7,539 901 26,550

Source: DOJ’s Civil Division. 

Number of Claims Filed Peaked In 2001 

The number of claims peaked at 3,822 in fiscal year 2001 following the RECA 

Amendments of 2000, which, as we noted earlier, broadened the scope of eligibility 

for benefits to include two new occupationally exposed claimant categories. Since 

fiscal year 2001, there has been a decline in the number of claims filed with the 

exception of a slight increase in fiscal year 2005. Figure 3 shows the number of new 

claims filed annually. 

Figure 3: Number of RECA Claims Received Each Fiscal Year from 

1992 through 2007 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

2007a 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Number of claims

Source: DOJ’s Civil Division.

Fiscal year

Note: The numbers of RECA claims received from 1992 through 2007 do not include appeals of denied claims. 

a

Claims received through June 30, 2007. 

The declining number of claims received since the peak in 2001 has also allowed 

RECP to make significant progress in reducing the backlog of claims awaiting 

Page 9 GAO-07-1037R Radiation Exposure Compensation 
adjudication. In 2003 and 2005 we reported that RECP’s backlog of pending claims 

was 2,654 as of September 30, 2002 and 1,803 as of June 19, 2005, respectively. As of 

June 30, 2007, the backlog of pending claims was down to 901, as shown in table 1. 

Average Annual Processing Times for Each Category of Claimant Have 

Decreased since 2004 

We compared RECP-provided data on average claim-processing time by claimant 

category for claims adjudicated in fiscal years 2004 through 2006, and 2007 (as of 

June 30). As shown in figure 4, the average processing times decreased across all five 

claimant categories between fiscal years 2004 and 2007. 

Figure 4: Average Processing Times for Claims Adjudicated in Fiscal Years 

2004 through 2007, by Claimant Category 

The Civil Division set a long-term performance goal for RECP to reduce its overall 

average claim-processing time across all five claimant categories to 200 days by 2011. 

Starting with fiscal year 2005 as a baseline, and for each fiscal year thereafter through 

2011, the Civil Division also set interim performance goals for processing claims in 

297, 277, 258, 239, 219, and 200 days, respectively. For fiscal year 2006, RECP overall 

average claim-processing time was 339 days, 42 days more than its performance goal 

of 297 days.17 These processing goals consider that much of the delay in claimprocessing time is attributed to periods of time when RECP is awaiting the 

 17According to RECP, the methodology it uses to measure overall average claim-processing time is a weighted 

average calculated on the basis of the number of claims adjudicated in each claimant category. Using that

methodology, the overall average claim-processing time in days for fiscal year 2004 was 379; fiscal year 2005 was 

316; fiscal year 2006 was 339; and fiscal year 2007 (as of 6/30/07) was 312. 

Page 10 GAO-07-1037R Radiation Exposure Compensation 
submission of additional documentation from claimants in response to program 

requests for additional evidence to establish a meritorious claim. According to 

RECP, there are also situations where the claimants request extensions of time to 

provide such documentation. OMB, in its evaluation of RECP’s strategic planning 

efforts in fiscal year 2006, noted that although the long-term performance goal to 

reduce processing time to 200 days by 2011 was ambitious, it meaningfully reflected 

the need to reduce the amount of time that this aging population must wait for 

adjudication of its claims. 

While RECP did not meet its overall processing goal of 297 days for fiscal year 2006, it 

did process claims for three out of five claimant categories in less than 297 days. For 

example, in fiscal year 2006, average processing time for uranium miners was 

289 days, uranium millers was 216 days, and ore transporters was 206 days. 

According to RECP, average processing times for on-site participant claims are 

typically longer (454 days during fiscal year 2006). In many cases on-site participant 

claimants requested extensions of time in order to consider whether to continue 

receiving monthly annuity compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs 

(VA) or to accept the lump sum RECA award. The statute requires RECP to offset all 

payments made by VA for the same injuries that the individual has applied for under 

RECA. In some situations, the on-site participant claimant will reject the RECA 

award in favor of receiving the monthly annuity compensation from VA. 

Similarly, processing times increased for on-site participants, and to a lesser extent 

for downwinders, because these claimants requested extended periods of time to 

elect whether to accept an award under RECA or under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA). According to RECP, a 

provision of EEOICPA has been interpreted to mean that on-site participant and 

downwinder claimants who elect to accept payments under RECA are disqualified 

from receiving benefits under EEOICPA for which they may be eligible. Further, with 

respect to downwinder claims, which took 384 days to process during fiscal year 

2006, a reduction in staffing was the main reason behind the delay in processing these 

claims, according to RECP. 

Future Downwinder and On-site Participant Claims and Funding Needs Are 

Expected to Decline over the Next 16 Years; RECP Administrative Costs 

Have Remained Generally Stable over the Past 5 Years 

Using cumulative historical data on claim activity from RECP’s first 15 years, OPBE 

estimates that starting in fiscal year 2007 through the scheduled end of the RECA 

Trust Fund in 2022, RECP will receive a total of about 5,560 additional claims from 

Page 11 GAO-07-1037R Radiation Exposure Compensation 
downwinder and on-site participants.18 Figure 5 shows that the number of claims 

RECP is currently estimated to receive annually will steadily decline from 1,073 in 

fiscal year 2007 to 54 in fiscal year 2022. 

 

Figure 5: OPBE’s Projections of the Number of Claims RECP Expects to 

Receive from Downwinder and On-site Participant Claimants during Fiscal 

Years 2007 through 2022 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Number of claims

Source: DOJ’s Civil Division’s.

Fiscal year

OPBE also estimates that an additional $248.3 million will be required to pay 

approved downwinder and on-site participant claimants from the RECA Trust Fund 

for the remaining life of the program. Figure 6 shows projected payments to 

downwinder and on-site participant claimants during fiscal years 2007 through 2022. 

 18To develop the estimates of future claims, OPBE used the Civil Division’s mathematical model, which makes 

projections on the basis of cumulative historical claim activity data from RECP’s first 15 years. According to 

OPBE, KPMG, DOJ’s independent auditor, has reviewed the Civil Division’s model and methods for projecting 

claim receipts and awards for the life of RECP since fiscal year 2005 and recommended that outlier years (fiscal 

years 1992, 2000, and 2001) be excluded from all estimate calculations to minimize the impact of workload 

aberrations caused by RECP’s initial start-up and the RECA Amendments of 2000. OPBE estimated the number of 

claims filed annually until the RECA Trust Fund ends in 2022 by finding the average number of claims filed from

1992 through 2006 (exclusive of the outlier years). 

Page 12 GAO-07-1037R Radiation Exposure Compensation 
Figure 6: OPBE’s Projections of RECP’s Payments to Downwinder and 

On-site Participant Claimants during Fiscal Years 2007 through 2022 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Funding (dollars in millions)

Source: DOJ’s Civil Division.

Fiscal year

OPBE projects that the funding needed annually to pay downwinder and on-site 

participant claimants through the end of the RECA Trust Fund will decrease 

substantially since fewer claims are being filed and DOJ no longer is responsible for 

paying the highest-paid claimants—uranium miners, millers, and ore transporters. 

The Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 

mandated that uranium millers, miners, and ore transporters (those who are the 

highest cost claimants entitled to $100,000) be compensated through the Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program administered by the 

Department of Labor, although RECP would continue to adjudicate their claims. 

Funds to administer RECP have remained generally stable over the last 5 years, 

averaging about $2.5 million each year. Starting in fiscal year 2003, appropriations for 

RECP’s administrative expenses were included in DOJ’s Salaries and Expenses, 

General Legal Activities account, rather than in a separate appropriation account. 

RECP’s administrative expenses for fiscal year 2007 (as of June 30) were $2.2 million, 

and expenses for fiscal years 2003 through 2006 ranged from $2.2 million to 

$2.9 million, as shown in table 2. Table 2 also shows the number of full-time 

equivalent (FTE) government positions and contract employees each year during 

fiscal years 2003 through 2007. 

Page 13 GAO-07-1037R Radiation Exposure Compensation 
Table 2: Full-time Equivalent Staff Levels and Administrative Costs for 

Processing RECA Claims during Fiscal Years 2003 through 2007 

Fiscal year 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007a

Total administrative costs

(dollars in millions) $2.2 $2.6 $2.9 $2.6 $2.2

Government FTE staff 17 16 16 14 14

Contractor FTE staff 3 8 7 4 3

Source: DOJ’s Civil Division. 

a

RECA administrative cost data for fiscal year 2007 are as of June 30, 2007. 

Agency Comments 

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

DOJ advised us that it had no formal agency comments. Department of Justice staff 

provided technical comments, which have been incorporated into the report as 

appropriate. 

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

Office of Management and Budget; selected congressional committees; and any other 

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

points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on 

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

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

202-512-9610 or at caldwells@gao.gov. William W. Crocker, Mary Y. Martin, and 

Geoffrey R. Hamilton made key contributions to this report. 

Stephen L. Caldwell 

Director, Homeland Security and 

 Justice Issues 

Page 14 GAO-07-1037R Radiation Exposure Compensation 
Appendix I: RECP’s Claims Adjudication Process 

Page 15 GAO-07-1037R 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

Claimants have the option of refiling their denied claims or appealing the denial decision to the appeals officer. 

c

RECP authorizes the Department of the Treasury to pay downwinder and on-site participant claims and the 

Department of Labor to pay claims of uranium miners, uranium millers, and ore transporters.

d

Claimants who 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. As of July 10, 2000, on 

the basis of the RECA Amendments of 2000, a claimant can refile a claim for consideration up to three times. 

e

A claimant may appeal the denial, in writing, within 60 days of the Assistant Director’s decision. 

f

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 for further consideration. 

(440608) 

Page 16 GAO-07-1037R Radiation Exposure Compensation 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability 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 GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

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. Government Accountability 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 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Susan Becker, Acting Manager, Beckers@GAO.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER