United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Immigration, 

Border Security, and Claims, Committee 

on the Judiciary, House of Representatives

ENERGY EMPLOYEES 

COMPENSATION 

GAO’s Prior Work Has 

Identified Needed 

Improvements in Various 

Aspects of the Program 

Statement of Daniel Bertoni, Director, 

Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 4:00 p.m. EST 

Tuesday, December 5, 2006

 

GAO-07-233T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

December 5, 2006

ENERGY EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION

GAO’s Prior Work Has Identified Needed 

Improvements in Various Aspects of the 

Program

Highlights of GAO-07-233T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Immigration, 

Border Security, and Claims, Committee 

on the Judiciary, House of 

Representatives 

The Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation

Program Act (EEOICPA) was 

enacted in 2000 to compensate

Department of Energy employees

and contractors who developed 

work-related illnesses such as 

cancer and lung disease. Energy 

administered Subtitle D of the 

program. Subtitle B of the program 

is administered by the Department 

of Labor, which uses estimates of 

workers’ likely radiation exposure 

to make compensation decisions. 

The estimates, known as dose 

reconstructions, are performed by

the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health

(NIOSH) under the Department of

Health and Human Services (HHS). 

The act specified that the President

establish an Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health to 

review the scientific validity of 

NIOSH’s dose reconstructions and 

recommend whether workers 

should be part of special exposure 

cohorts whose claimants can be 

compensated without dose 

reconstructions. A recent 

memorandum from the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) to 

Labor has raised concern about 

potential efforts to unduly contain 

the cost of benefits paid to

claimants. This testimony presents

GAO’s past work on program 

performance and the work of the 

advisory board. It also highlights 

GAO’s ongoing work relevant to 

issues raised by the OMB 

memorandum. GAO interviewed 

key officials and reviewed contract

and other agency documents.

GAO issued two reports in 2004 that focused on claims processing and 

program structure. The first report found that Energy got off to a slow start 

in processing Subtitle D claims and faced a backlog of cases. In addition, 

limitations in data systems made it difficult to assess Energy’s performance. 

GAO recommended that Energy take actions to expedite claims processing, 

enhance communication with claimants, and improve case management 

data. The report also highlighted problems with program structure that could 

lead to inconsistent benefit outcomes and GAO presented various options 

for restructuring the program. Congress subsequently incorporated features 

of some of these options in enacting new legislation that dramatically 

restructured the program and transferred it from Energy to Labor. Labor has 

taken action to address the recommendations GAO made to Energy. The 

second report found that Labor and NIOSH faced a large backlog of claims 

awaiting dose reconstruction. To enhance program management and 

transparency, HHS implemented GAO’s recommendation to establish time

frames for completing profiles of Energy work sites, which are a critical 

element in efficiently processing claims that require dose reconstruction. 

GAO’s February 2006 report found that the roles of two key NIOSH officials 

involved with the work of the advisory board may not have been sufficiently

independent because these officials also represented the dose 

reconstruction program under review. In response, NIOSH replaced them 

with a senior official not involved in the program. Since credibility is

essential to the advisory board’s work, GAO concluded that ongoing 

diligence by HHS is required to avoid actual or perceived conflicts of roles 

when new candidates are considered for these roles. GAO also found that 

the board’s work presented a steep learning curve, prompting adjustments to 

the work done by the contractor assisting the board. GAO recommended 

actions to provide the board with more comprehensive data on contractor 

spending levels compared to work actually completed, assist the board in 

reexamining its long-term plan for reviewing NIOSH’s work, and better track 

agency actions taken in response to board and contractor findings. HHS has 

implemented these recommendations.

One aspect of GAO’s ongoing work especially relevant to the OMB 

memorandum is the extent to which Labor’s concerns over potentially 

escalating benefit costs may have led the agency to be involved in activities 

tasked to NIOSH, the advisory board, or the contractor assisting the board. 

NIOSH agreed to provide Labor with draft versions of some of its 

evaluations of special exposure cohort petitions and other NIOSH technical 

documents before sending them for board review. Labor has commented on 

some of these draft documents. Labor officials told us that their reviews 

focus on changes needed to promote clarity and consistency in the 

adjudication of claims. As the review proceeds, GAO plans to obtain more 

information on key issues such as the timing, nature, and basis of Labor’s 

activities in light of the program’s design and assignment of responsibilities. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-233T.

To view the full product, click on the link 

above. For more information, contact 

Daniel Bertoni at (202) 512-7215 or

bertonid@gao.gov. 
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss GAO’s completed and ongoing 

work on the implementation of the Energy Employees Occupational 

Illness Compensation Program Act1

 (EEOICPA). For the last several 

decades, the Department of Energy and its predecessor agencies and 

contractors have employed thousands of individuals in secret and 

dangerous work in the atomic weapons industry. This legislation was 

enacted in 2000 to provide compensation to Energy employees and 

contractors who were exposed to radioactive and hazardous materials and 

who subsequently developed illnesses such as cancer and lung disease. 

Subtitle B of the program is administered by the Department of Labor 

(Labor) and provides for a one-time payment of $150,000 to eligible 

workers or their survivors and coverage of future medical expenses 

associated with their illnesses. From the program’s effective date in July 

2001, through October 2006, Labor received 77,710 Subtitle B claims and 

has made payments for 21,376 of these claims exceeding $1.7 billion.2

The compensation act also called for the President to establish the 

President’s Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health—composed 

of scientists, physicians, and employee representatives—to advise the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) on its activities under the 

act.3

 The board is tasked with reviewing the scientific validity and quality 

of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s (NIOSH) 

“dose reconstructions.” These are estimates of the likely radiation levels to 

which individual workers were exposed that Labor uses to determine 

whether claimants will receive compensation. The board is also tasked 

with making recommendations to the HHS Secretary on whether to 

approve petitions for “special exposure cohort” status. Because certain 

facilities are known to have exposed employees to radiation while keeping 

few records of individuals’ exposure, their employees have been 

designated under the law as members of the special exposure cohort and 

their claims may be paid without individual dose reconstructions.The 

board is assisted in its oversight work by a contractor. 

 1

Title XXXVI of Pub. L. No. 106-398. 

2

Labor publishes program statistics at its Web site: 

http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/owcp/eeoicp/weeklystats.htm. 

3

In December 2000 the President established the Advisory Board through Executive Order 

13179. 

Page 1 GAO-07-233T 
Subtitle D of EEOICPA established a separate program that was 

administered by Energy. This program allowed Energy to help its 

contractors’ employees file state workers’ compensation claims for 

illnesses determined by a panel of physicians to be caused by exposure to

toxic substances while employed at an Energy facility. In October 2004, 

Congress amended the act to restructure the program and to transfer 

responsibility from Energy to Labor under the newly created Subtitle E.4

Over the last several years, GAO has issued reports identifying needed

improvements in various aspects of the EEOICPA program that can affect 

compensation provided to claimants. In 2004, we issued two reports that 

focused on claims processing and program structure.5 In February 2006, 

we reported to you on the status of the advisory board’s review of the 

scientific validity and quality of NIOSH’s dose reconstructions.6

Since the issuance of our February 2006 report, a memorandum from the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to Labor has generated 

considerable congressional concern about the potential for inappropriate 

efforts to contain the cost of benefits paid to claimants. The memorandum 

notes that Labor has identified the potential for a large expansion of 

EEOICPA Part B benefits through the designation of special exposure 

cohorts. The memorandum further states that the Administration planned

to convene a White House-led interagency workgroup to develop options 

to contain growth in the costs of benefits provided by the program. The 

memorandum specifically identifies five options, including more extensive 

review of NIOSH’s special exposure cohort recommendations and 

 4

Subtitle E of Title XXXI of Pub.L. No. 108-375. 

5

Energy Employees Compensation: Even with Needed Improvements in Case Processing, 

Program Structure May Result in Inconsistent Benefit Outcomes, GAO-04-516

(Washington, D.C.: May 28, 2004) and Energy Employees Compensation: Many Claims 

Have Been Processed, but Action is Needed to Expedite Processing of Claims Requiring 

Radiation Exposure Estimates, GAO-04-958 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2004).

6

Energy Employees Compensation: Adjustments Made to Contracted Review Process, but 

Additional Oversight and Planning Would Aid the Advisory Board in Meeting Its 

Statutory Responsibilities, GAO-06-177 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 10, 2006).

Page 2 GAO-07-233T 
addressing any “imbalance” in advisory board membership.7

 While it is 

reasonable for OMB to have a role in overseeing the costs of federal 

programs, some have raised concerns that certain options set forth in the

memorandum, if implemented, could result in decisions unduly based on 

budgetary considerations rather than established scientific procedures for 

compensating workers under this program. This Subcommittee held 

several hearings in 2006 in response to such concerns. 

GAO is currently conducting work requested by this Subcommittee to 

examine a broad range of issues concerning implementation of Subtitle B.

A central focus of our ongoing work is on the reasons for increases in 

costs for the contractors assisting NIOSH in performing dose 

reconstructions and how effectively NIOSH has managed these 

contractors. Our ongoing work also addresses other issues, including the 

implementation of conflict of interest policies for NIOSH and its 

contractors, options for further strengthening the independence of the 

advisory board and the contractor assisting the board, and the extent, if 

any, to which Labor is involved in Subtitle B activities that have been 

tasked to NIOSH, the advisory board, or the contractor assisting the board, 

as specified by statute, regulation, or contract. As agreed with your 

Committee, we plan to issue a report on our ongoing work by the summer 

of 2007. 

My testimony today will focus on three specific areas. First, I will discuss 

our 2004 reports on claims processing and program structure. Second, I 

will provide an overview of key findings from our February 2006 report on 

the work of the advisory board. Third, I will highlight an area of our 

ongoing work that is especially relevant to issues raised by the OMB 

memorandum to Labor. In performing this work, we interviewed key 

officials, examined pertinent contract-related documents such as monthly 

progress reports, and reviewed agency procedures and practices. Our 

work is being conducted in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. 

 7

The OMB memorandum to Labor specifies the following five cost containment options: 

(1) require administration clearance of special exposure cohort determination; (2) address

any imbalance in membership of the President’s Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker

Health; (3) require an expedited review by outside experts of special exposure cohort

recommendations by NIOSH; (4) require NIOSH to apply conflict of interest rules and 

constraints to the contractor assisting the Advisory Board; and (5) require that NIOSH 

demonstrate that its site profiles and other dose reconstruction guidance are balanced. 

Page 3 GAO-07-233T 
In summary, our May 2004 report indicated that Energy got off to a slow 

start in processing Subtitle D claims and faced a backlog of cases awaiting 

review by a physician panel. We concluded that in the absence of changes

to expedite Energy’s review, many claimants would likely wait years to 

receive the determination they needed from Energy to pursue a state 

workers’ compensation claim, and in the interim their medical conditions 

might worsen or they might even die. We recommended that Energy take

actions to expedite claims processing, enhance communications with 

claimants, and improve case management data. Our report also highlighted 

problems with the structure of the program that could lead to inconsistent 

benefit outcomes for claimants. We identified various options for 

restructuring the program and a framework of factors to consider in 

evaluating these options that informed congressional deliberations in 

enacting new legislation to dramatically restructure the program and 

transfer it from Energy to Labor. Labor told us it has taken actions to 

address each of the recommendations we made to the Secretary of Energy

in our report. For example, Labor has compiled a data base of the toxic 

substances that may have been present at Energy facilities and linked 

them to medical conditions to help expedite the processing of claims. In 

addition, Labor rebuilt its case management system which tracks all 

Subtitle E claims transferred from Energy and enhanced the system’s 

performance and reliability. 

Our September 2004 report focused on the Subtitle B program and found 

that Labor and NIOSH faced a large backlog of claims awaiting dose 

reconstruction. NIOSH had learned from its initial implementation 

experience that completing site profiles—documents which describe the 

layout, materials used, radiation sources, and other characteristics of work 

sites—is a critical element for efficiently processing claims requiring dose

reconstruction. To enhance program management and promote greater 

transparency with regard to the timeliness of completing dose 

reconstructions, we recommended that the Secretary of HHS direct agency

officials to establish time frames for completing the remaining site 

profiles, which HHS has done. 

Our February 2006 report found that the roles of certain key federal 

agency officials initially involved in the advisory board’s review of dose 

reconstructions may not have been sufficiently independent, but that 

actions were taken to replace these officials. Since credibility is essential

to the work of the advisory board, we concluded that continued diligence 

is required by HHS in avoiding actual or perceived conflicts of roles when 

new candidates are considered for the roles. We also found that the 

advisory board’s review of site profiles and dose reconstructions 

Page 4 GAO-07-233T 
presented a steep learning curve and prompted the board to adjust the 

contractor’s work to better meet the needs of the review. For example, the 

board revised task orders for the contractor to reduce the number of 

reviews to be completed or extend completion dates. Nonetheless, we 

concluded that further improvements could be made to the oversight and

planning of the contracted review. We recommended that HHS provide the 

board with more comprehensive data on contractor spending levels 

compared to work actually completed, assist the board in reexamining its 

long-term plan for reviewing NIOSH’s work, and improve tracking of 

agency actions taken in response to board and contractor findings. HHS 

has implemented these recommendations. 

One aspect of our ongoing work on Subtitle B is especially relevant to 

issues raised by the OMB memorandum to Labor. We are examining 

whether Labor is involved in activities tasked to NIOSH, the advisory 

board, or the contractor assisting the board, and if so, whether these 

activities reflect an effort to constrain the cost of benefits. For example, in

some cases NIOSH has shared drafts of its special exposure cohort 

petition evaluations as well as drafts of other NIOSH technical documents 

with Labor before sending final versions to the advisory board, which is 

tasked to review them. Labor has provided comments on some of these 

draft documents. Labor officials told us that the basis of their involvement 

is Labor’s designation as primary administrator of the program. Labor 

officials added that their reviews of these documents focus on changes 

needed to promote clarity and consistency in the adjudication of claims. 

We are currently examining the extent, nature, and outcome of Labor’s 

comments on various NIOSH documents. As our work proceeds, we plan 

to obtain additional information on key issues such as the timing, nature, 

and basis of Labor’s activities in light of the program’s design and 

assignment of responsibilities. 

Several different federal agencies are involved with the implementation of 

the Subtitle B program, including Labor, HHS, and Energy. However, 

Labor has primary responsibility for administering the program. Labor 

receives the claims, determines whether the claimant meets the eligibility 

requirements, and adjudicates the claim. When considering the 

compensability of certain claims, Labor relies on dose reconstructions 

developed by NIOSH, under HHS. To avoid gathering similar information 

for each claim associated with a particular facility, NIOSH compiles 

facility-specific information in “site profiles,” which assist NIOSH in 

completing the dose reconstructions. NIOSH contracted with Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities and the Battelle Corporation to develop site 

Background 

Page 5 GAO-07-233T 
profiles and draft dose reconstructions. Energy is responsible for 

providing Labor and NIOSH with employment verification, estimated 

radiation dose, and facility-wide monitoring data.

Labor does not refer all claims to NIOSH for dose reconstruction. For 

example, reconstructions are not needed for workers in the special 

exposure cohort. For special exposure cohort claimants, Labor verifies the 

employment and illness, and develops a recommended compensability 

decision that is issued to the claimant. The act specified that classes of 

workers from four designated locations would constitute the special 

exposure cohort8

 and authorized the Secretary of HHS to add additional 

classes of employees. Classes of workers may petition HHS to be added to 

the cohort. A class of employees is generally defined by the facility at 

which they worked, the specific years they worked, and the type of work 

they did.9

 NIOSH collects and evaluates the petitions and gives the results 

of its evaluations to the advisory board for review. The board, in turn, 

submits a recommendation to the Secretary of HHS to accept or deny the

petition. To date, 13 classes of workers have been approved at 10 sites, 

and petitions from 9 additional sites have been qualified for evaluation. A 

petition from one site has been evaluated and denied. 

Our May 2004 report identified various problems with Energy’s processing 

of Subtitle D cases. Energy got off to a slow start in processing cases but 

had taken some steps to reduce the backlog of cases waiting for review by

a physician panel. For example, Energy took steps to expand the number 

of physicians who would qualify to serve on the panels and recruit more 

physicians. Nonetheless, a shortage of qualified physicians continued to 

constrain the agency’s capacity to decide cases more quickly. Further, 

insufficient strategic planning and systems limitations made it difficult to 

assess Energy’s achievement of goals relative to case processing and 

program objectives, such as the quality of the assistance provided to 

claimants in filing for state workers’ compensation. We concluded that in 

GAO’s Prior Work 

Identified Problems 

with Case Processing 

and Program 

Structure 

 8

These four locations include three gaseous diffusion plants in Oak Ridge, Tennessee;

Paducah, Kentucky; Portsmouth, Ohio; and an underground nuclear test site on Amchitka

Island, Alaska.

9

For example, a member of the Amchitka Island Nuclear Explosion site special exposure 

cohort is defined in the statute as an employee who was “employed before January 1, 1974, 

by the Department of Energy or a Department of Energy contractor or subcontractor on 

Amchitka Island, Alaska and was exposed to ionizing radiation in the performance of duty

related to the Long Shot, Milrow, or Cannikin underground nuclear tests.” 

Page 6 GAO-07-233T 
the absence of changes that would expedite Energy’s review, many 

claimants would likely wait years to receive the determination they 

needed from Energy to pursue a state workers’ compensation claim, and 

in the interim their medical conditions might worsen or they might even 

die. We made several recommendations to Energy to help improve its 

effectiveness in assisting Subtitle D claimants in obtaining compensation. 

Specifically, we recommended that Energy take additional steps to 

expedite the processing of claims through its physician panels, enhance 

the quality of its communications with claimants, and develop costeffective methods for improving the quality of case management data and

its capabilities to aggregate these data to address program issues. Energy 

generally agreed with these recommendations. 

Our May 2004 report also identified structural problems that could lead to

inconsistent benefit outcomes for claimants whose illness was determined 

by a physician panel to be caused by exposure to toxic substances while 

employed at an Energy facility. Our analysis of cases associated with 

Energy facilities in nine states10 indicated that a few thousand cases would 

lack a “willing payer” of workers’ compensation benefits; that is, they 

would lack an insurer that—by order from, or agreement with, Energy—

would not contest these claims. As a result, in some instances, these cases

may have been less likely to receive compensation than cases for which 

there was a willing payer. We identified various options for restructuring 

the program to improve payment outcomes and presented a framework of 

issues to consider in evaluating these options. Congress subsequently 

enacted legislation that dramatically restructured the program, transferred 

it from Energy to Labor, and incorporated features of some of the options

we identified. Labor told us it has taken actions to address each of the

recommendations we made to the Secretary of Energy in our report. For 

example, Labor has compiled a data base of the toxic substances that may 

have been present at Energy facilities and linked them to medical 

conditions to help expedite the processing of claims. In addition, Labor 

has rebuilt its case management system which tracks all Subtitle E claims 

transferred from Energy and enhanced the system’s performance and 

reliability.

Our September 2004 report on the Subtitle B program found that in the 

first 21⁄2 years of the program, Labor and NIOSH had fully processed only 

 10The total number of cases in the nine states accounted for more than three-quarters of all 

Subtitle D claims that had been filed. 

Page 7 GAO-07-233T 
9 percent of the more than 21,000 claims that were referred to NIOSH for 

dose reconstruction. NIOSH officials reported that the backlog of dose 

reconstruction claims arose because of several factors, including the time 

needed to get the necessary staff and procedures in place for performing 

dose reconstructions and to develop site profiles. NIOSH learned from its 

initial implementation experience that completing site profiles is a critical

element for efficiently processing claims requiring dose reconstructions. 

To enhance program management and promote greater transparency with

regard to timeliness, we recommended that the Secretary of HHS direct 

agency officials to establish time frames for completing the remaining site 

profiles, which HHS has done. 

Our February 2006 report discussed the roles of certain federal agency 

officials involved in the advisory board’s review of NIOSH’s dose 

reconstructions and site profiles that raised concerns about the 

independence of this review. The project officer who was initially assigned 

responsibility for reviewing the monthly progress reports and monitoring 

the technical performance of the contractor reviewing NIOSH’s dose 

reconstruction activities for the advisory board was also a manager of the

NIOSH dose reconstruction program. In addition, the person assigned to 

be the designated federal officer for the advisory board, who is 

responsible for scheduling and attending board meetings, was also the 

director of the dose reconstruction program being reviewed. In response 

to concerns about the appearance of conflicting roles, the director of 

NIOSH replaced both of these officials in December 2004 with a senior 

NIOSH official not involved in the program. The contractor and members 

of the board told us that implementation of the contract improved after 

these officials were replaced. Since credibility is essential to the work of 

the advisory board and the contractor assisting the board, we concluded

that continued diligence by HHS is required to prevent such problems 

from recurring when new candidates are considered for these roles. With

regard to structural independence, we found it appropriate that the 

contracting officers managing the contract on behalf of the advisory board 

were officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

NIOSH’s parent agency, who do not have responsibilities for the NIOSH 

program under review and are not accountable to its managers. In 

addition, advisory board members helped facilitate the independence of

the contractor’s work by playing the leading role in developing and 

approving the initial statement of work for the contractor and the 

independent government cost estimate for the contract. 

GAO’s Prior Work 

Also Highlighted 

Issues of Advisory 

Board Independence 

and Oversight of the 

Contractor 

Supporting the Board 

Our February 2006 report identified further improvements that could be

made to the oversight and planning of the advisory board’s contracted 

Page 8 GAO-07-233T 
review of NIOSH’s dose reconstructions and site profiles. We found that 

this review presented a steep learning curve for the various parties 

involved. In the first 2 years, the contractor assisting the board had spent 

almost 90 percent of the $3 million that had been allocated to the contract 

for a 5-year undertaking. In addition, the contractor’s expenditure levels 

were not adequately monitored by the agency in the initial months and the 

contractor’s monthly progress reports did not provide sufficient details on

the level of work completed compared to funds expended. The advisory 

board had made mid-course adjustments to the contractor’s task orders 

and review procedures, such as by revising task orders to reduce the 

number of reviews to be completed or extend completion dates. However, 

the board had not comprehensively reexamined its long-term plan for the 

overall project to determine whether the plan needed to be modified in 

light of knowledge gained over the past few years. Finally, without a 

system to track the actions taken by NIOSH in response to the findings 

and recommendations of the advisory board and contractor, there was no 

assurance that needed improvements were being made. 

We made three recommendations to HHS to address these shortcomings. 

First, we recommended that HHS provide the board with more integrated 

and comprehensive data on contractor spending levels compared with 

work actually completed, which HHS has done. Second, we recommended 

that HHS consider the need for providing HHS staff to collect and analyze

pertinent information to help the advisory board comprehensively 

reexamine its long-term plan for assessing the NIOSH site profiles and 

dose reconstructions. HHS is considering the need for such action. Third, 

we recommended that the Director of NIOSH establish a system to track 

actions taken by the agency in response to the board and contractor’s 

findings and recommendations. NIOSH now tracks agency actions to 

resolve the board and contractor’s comments. 

As part of our ongoing work, we are examining to what extent, if any,

Labor is involved in certain Subtitle B activities. While the director of 

Labor’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs stated that Labor has

not taken any actions to implement the options outlined in the OMB 

memorandum, Labor’s internal correspondence reflects major concerns 

about the potential for rapidly expanding costs in Subtitle B benefits 

resulting from adding new classes of workers to the special exposure 

cohort. One aspect of our ongoing work is determining whether Labor is 

involved in activities that have been tasked to NIOSH, the advisory board, 

or the contractor assisting the board, and if so, whether these activities 

reflect an effort to constrain the costs of benefits. Our work in this area is 

GAO’s Ongoing Work 

Includes Focus on 

Labor’s Involvement 

in Certain Subtitle B 

Program Activities 

Page 9 GAO-07-233T 
still ongoing and we have not drawn any conclusions. Nonetheless, we 

would like to briefly highlight the types of issues we will be analyzing as 

our work proceeds. 

NIOSH has, in some cases, shared draft versions of key documents with 

Labor before finalizing and sending them to the advisory board for review. 

For example, NIOSH has shared draft special exposure cohort petition 

evaluations with Labor. Similarly, NIOSH has agreed to allow Labor to 

review and comment on drafts of various technical documents such as site 

profiles, technical basis documents, or technical information bulletins,11 all

of which are used to help perform dose reconstructions. Labor has 

provided comments on some of these draft documents. Labor officials told 

us that the basis of their involvement is Labor’s designation as lead agency

with primary responsibility for administering the program. Labor officials 

added that their reviews of these documents focus on changes needed to

promote clarity and consistency in the adjudication of claims. In addition, 

Labor has reviewed individual dose reconstructions completed by NIOSH. 

Labor officials told us that they review all NIOSH dose reconstructions 

and return them for rework if, for example, they find errors in factual 

information or in the way the dose reconstruction methodology was 

applied. We are currently examining the extent, nature, and outcome of 

Labor’s comments on these various documents. As our review proceeds, 

we plan to obtain more information on key issues such as the timing, 

nature, and basis of Labor’s activities in light of the program’s design and

assignment of responsibilities. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I will be pleased to 

answer any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may 

have. 

 11Site profiles are documents that describe a specific work site, including physical 

appearance and layout of the site, the work processes used there, the types of materials 

used, potential sources of radiation, and other details important at that work site. Site 

profiles may be used to assist NIOSH in the completion of the dose reconstruction.

Technical basis documents are the individual documents that form a site profile. Technical 

information bulletins contain information on specific technical issues or procedures for

estimating radiation exposure for specific or multiple work sites. They are used to add to 

or supplement site profiles and technical basis documents. 

Page 10 GAO-07-233T 
GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at 

(202) 512-7215. Key contributors to this testimony were Claudia Becker, 

Meeta Engle, Robert Sampson, Andrew Sherrill, and Charles Willson. 

Page 11 GAO-07-233T 
Page 12 GAO-07-233T 

Related GAO Products 

Department of Energy, Office of Worker Advocacy: Deficient Controls 

Led to Millions of Dollars in Improper and Questionable Payments to 

Contractors. GAO-06-547. Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2006. 

Energy Employees Compensation: Adjustments Made to Contracted 

Review Process, but Additional Oversight and Planning Would Aid the 

Advisory Board in Meeting Its Statutory Responsibilities. GAO-06-177. 

Washington, D.C.: Feb. 10, 2006. 

Energy Employees Compensation: Many Claims Have Been Processed, 

but Action Is Needed to Expedite Processing of Claims Requiring 

Radiation Exposure Estimates. GAO-04-958. Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10,

2004. 

Energy Employees Compensation: Even with Needed Improvements in 

Case Processing, Program Structure May Result in Inconsistent Benefit 

Outcomes. GAO-04-516. Washington, D.C.: May 28, 2004. 

(130627) 
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. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
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 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@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