Page 1 GAO-05-1002R Radiation Exposure Compensation 

September 28, 2005 

Congressional Committees 

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. Many people who were 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, 

the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) was enacted.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. RECP began processing claims 

in April 1992. RECA has been amended several times,2

 including on July 

10, 2000, when the RECA Amendments of 2000 were enacted.3

 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 

 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. 

2

Early amendments included November 1990 amendments (Pub. L. No. 101-510, 104 Stat. 

1835, 1837) that among other things expanded eligibility to include on-site participants and 

October 1992 amendments (Pub. L. No. 102-486, 106 Stat. 3131) that provided for the 

judicial review of denied claims. 

3

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

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-05-1002R Radiation Exposure Compensation 

the enactment of the amendments and every 18 months thereafter.4 We 

have reported twice previously on DOJ’s administration of RECA.5

In our last report, we identified the potential for a funding shortage in the 

compensation trust fund. We recommended 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 estimated to be needed to pay claims projected to be approved 

over the 2003 to 2011 period. 

This report follows up on our previous recommendation and updates 

information on the status of the RECA program, including the (1) status of 

funds available to pay claims and pay program administration costs; (2) 

status of claims approved, denied, and pending; (3) processing times; and 

(4) the total of compensation awards. According to DOJ, 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 conducted our review from June 2005 through August 2005, in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

RECA established a procedure to make partial restitution to 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. 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 

 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 

Amendment 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), and GAO, Radiation 

Exposure Compensation: Funding to Pay Claims May Be Inadequate to Meet Projected 

Needs, GAO-03-481, (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 14, 2003). 

Background 
Page 3 GAO-05-1002R Radiation Exposure Compensation 

these responsibilities, the Attorney General has issued implementing 

regulations.6

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 

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. For more detailed 

information on the RECA claims adjudication process, see our April 2003 

report. 

The RECA Amendments of 2000 broadened the scope of eligibility for 

benefits coverage, including increasing the geographical area covered, 

allowing more individuals to qualify. Figure 1 shows the current areas 

affected under RECA. 

Figure 1 shows the current geographic areas that represent the scope of 

eligibility for benefits coverage under RECA. 

 6

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 4 GAO-05-1002R Radiation Exposure Compensation 

Figure 1: Map of RECA-Covered Areas 

In September 2002, in response to congressional direction7

 the Health 

Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)8

 asked the National 

Research Council9

 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. In 2005, the committee 

published its report that included among its recommendations, whether 

 7

(H. R. Conference Report No. 107-593, at 158 (2002)) 

8

HRSA is a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. HRSA provides 

national leadership and 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. 

9

The National Research Council is part of the National Academies, which also comprise the 

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

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

advice under a congressional charter. See www.nationalacademies.org. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Downwind counties

Source: Department of Justice, Civil Division.

Uranium worker states

Test site
Page 5 GAO-05-1002R Radiation Exposure Compensation 

persons from other states and territories should be considered for 

coverage under RECA.10 

In addition, the RECA amendments of 2000 amended a portion of the 

Public Health Service Act to authorize competitive grants to state and 

local governments, and appropriate health-care organizations, to initiate 

and support programs for health screening, education, medical referral, 

and appropriate follow-up services for persons eligible under RECA. HRSA 

oversees the grants as part of the Radiation Exposure Screening and 

Education Program. Table 1 shows the program grants awarded between 

fiscal years 2002 and 2005. 

 10 National Research Council, Committee to Assess the Scientific Information for the 

Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program, Board on Radiation Effects 

Research, Assessment of the Scientific Information for the Radiation Exposure Screening 

and Education Program (Washington , D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2005). For 

reference see: www.nap.edu. 
Page 6 GAO-05-1002R Radiation Exposure Compensation 

Table 1: Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program grants awarded between fiscal years 2002 and 2005 

Organizations Fiscal Year —$ in Thousands 

2002 2003 2004 2005

Utah Navajo Health System, Inc.—Montezuma Creek, UT $589 $210 $210 $185

St. Mary’s Hospital and Medical Center—Grand Junction, CO 581 313 313 276

Northern Navajo Medical Center—Shiprock, NM 517 375 375 336

Mountain Park Health Center—Phoenix, AZ 342 306 306 180

University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center—Albuquerque, NM 312 210 210 185

Miners’ Colfax Medical Center—Raton, NM 271 0 0 0

Intermountain Health Services—St. George, UT 0 313 313 282

University of Nevada – Reno—NV 0 0 0 180

Source: Health Resources and Services Administration. 

In April 2003, we reported that projected funding estimates to pay RECA 

claims may be inadequate and recommended that DOJ work with 

Congress to address the funding requirements. After that report, Congress 

took legislative actions to ensure that the RECA program would have 

sufficient funding to pay approved claims for the life of the program. 

According to the DOJ Civil Division’s Fiscal Year 2006 Performance 

Budget submission, the actions taken by Congress will ensure that the 

RECA program is fully funded for 2005 and in future years. The major 

changes are as follows: 

• The Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2005,11 mandated that uranium millers, miners, and ore 

transporters who are the highest cost claimants, (those entitled to 

$100,000) will still have their claims adjudicated by RECP, but will now 

be compensated through the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program administered by the Department of Labor.12

This leaves only 2 out of 5 claimant categories (on-site participants 

entitled to $75,000 and downwinders entitled to $50,000) compensated 

under the RECA program. 

 11Pub. L. No. 108-375, 118 Stat. 1811, 2187-88 (2004). 

12The 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 weapon testing sites or their survivors, as 

well as RECA covered uranium miners, millers, and ore transporters injured by exposure to 

ultra-hazardous materials, or their survivors. Pub. L. No. 106-398, 114 Stat. 1654 (2000). 

RECA Program 

Funding Status Has 

Improved 
Page 7 GAO-05-1002R Radiation Exposure Compensation 

• The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 appropriated $27.8 

million in addition to the fiscal year 2005 mandatory appropriation to 

the trust fund of $65 million for a total of $92.8 million, which the 

agency said will provide full funding for 2005. 

• Additionally, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 makes 

funding for downwinders and on-site participants mandatory and 

indefinite beginning in fiscal year 2006. As a result, according to 

agency officials, the appropriation will no longer end in 2011 as 

originally enacted and whatever amounts are required to pay the claims 

will be appropriated. 

In our last report, we stated that the administrative expense appropriation 

for RECP of about $2 million was insufficient to keep up with the number 

of claims submitted in fiscal years 2001 and 2002. However, several 

legislative changes were made starting with appropriations for fiscal year 

2003, to help ensure sufficient administrative funding would be available 

to meet future claims processing demands. First, for fiscal year 2003, 

appropriations for the programs administrative expenses were no longer 

contained, as was the case in previous years, in a separate account and 

were instead included within DOJ’s Salaries and Expenses, General Legal 

Activities account.13 In addition, while the fiscal year 2002 appropriation 

included a specific amount for administrative expenses, the fiscal year 

2003 administrative expenses provision contained a specific minimum 

amount. In accompanying conference report language, the conferees 

provided that they expected the Civil Division to absorb any additional 

requirements for processing RECA claims from other resources available 

to the Civil Division.14 Whereas the fiscal year 2004 administrative expense 

appropriation15 mirrored language contained in the fiscal year 2003 

appropriation, the pertinent fiscal year 2005 appropriations did not contain 

language specific to RECA administrative expenses.16 The House 

Appropriations Committee report for DOJ’s fiscal year 2005 appropriation 

provided that its recommendation would eliminate language for 

administrative expenses with respect to RECA.17 However, this Committee 

 13Pub. L. No. 108-7, 117 Stat. 11 (2003). 

14H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-10, at 607 (2003). 

15Pub. L. No. 108-199, 118 Stat. 3 (2004). 

16Pub. L. No. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809 (2004). 

17H.R. Rep. No. 108-576, at 15 (2004). 

More Flexibility 

Provided to Meet 

Program 

Administration 

Expenses 
Page 8 GAO-05-1002R Radiation Exposure Compensation 

recommended using language in previous appropriations acts allowing the 

Attorney General to provide additional resources to the Civil Division, if 

emergent circumstances warrant, through transfers of funds from other 

DOJ sources, subject to specific reprogramming requirements. 

When we last reported, RECP had received a total of 14,987 claims 

through fiscal year 2002. As of June 19, 2005, RECP had received 22, 206 

claims. Table 2 shows the number of RECA claims filed each fiscal year. 

Table 2: Number of RECA Claims Filed Each Fiscal Year 1992 through 2005 

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

1,898 1,340 1,207 827 551 408 358 394 837 3,822 3,345 3,105 2,380 1,734

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

a

Through June 19, 2005. 

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

possible outcomes—approval or denial of the claim. For approved onsite 

participant and downwinder claims, the claim is forwarded to the Treasury 

for payment. In the case of uranium worker claims, approved claims are 

forwarded to the Department of Labor for payment. If denied, applicants 

may refile their claims or pursue an administrative appeal which is 

handled by the agency. Of the total 22,206 claims filed, RECP reached a 

disposition on 20,403. The remaining 1,803, or about 8 percent of claims, 

were pending, as of June 19, 2005. 

Through June 19, 2005, RECP had approved $926.4 million in awards to 

claimants. Payment approvals include $455.8 million based on 

downwinder applications; $340.8 million to eligible individuals based on 

uranium mine employee applications; $63.6 million based on on-site 

participant applications; $55.0 million based on uranium miller 

applications; and $11.2 million based on ore transporter applications. 

Table 3 shows the number of RECA claims approved, denied, and pending 

through June 19, 2005, and the total dollar awards by claimant category. 

Number of RECA 

Claims Received 

Number of Claims 

Approved, Denied, 

and Pending 
Page 9 GAO-05-1002R Radiation Exposure Compensation 

Table 3: Number of RECA Claims Approved, Denied, and Pending through June 19, 

2005 

Category of 

Claimant Approved Denied Pending 

Total 

Claims

Dollar Awards 

Approved

($millions)

Downwinder 9,117 2,751 918 12,786 $455.8

Uranium miner 3,415 2,240 509 6,164 $340.8

On-site 

participant 889 1,138 245 2,272 $63.6

Uranium miller 550 147 111 808 $55.0

Ore transporter 112 44 20 176 $11.2

Total 14,083 6,320 1,803 22,206 $926.4

Source: Department of Justice, Civil Division 

We compared the claims processing times reported to us by DOJ in June 

of 2005, with the processing times at the time of our last report. As shown 

in table 4, claims processing times improved for four out of the five 

categories of claimants. The only category that does not show an improved 

average processing time is on-site participant claims. 

Table 4: Average Number of Days to Process a Claim for Fiscal Years 1992 through 

June 2005 

 Applicant type 

Uranium 

miner Downwinder

Uranium 

miller 

Ore 

transporter 

On-site 

participant

Average number of days to process claims 

End of fiscal 

year 2000 327 244 459 392 263

As of June 

2005 313 222 335 351 323

Increase/ 

(decrease) (14) (22) (124) (41) 60

Source: Department of Justice Civil Division. 

According to the program director, the increase in processing time for onsite participant claims is attributed to the extended periods of time 

requested by the claimants in order to make the election whether to accept 

the RECA award or an award pursuant to the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA). According 

to the RECA statute, if on-site participant claimants accept an award under 

Claims Processing 

Times Have Improved 
Page 10 GAO-05-1002R Radiation Exposure Compensation 

RECA, they will not be eligible to receive any payment or medical benefits 

under EEOICPA, even though they may qualify. Therefore, these 

claimants are provided with sufficient time in which to make this election. 

The proportion of claims received but not yet adjudicated has decreased 

significantly since we last reported. In our last report we stated that 2,654 

of 14,987, or about 18 percent of claims filed, were still pending 

adjudication. According to agency data as of June 2005, the total number 

of pending claims is down to 1,803, or about 8 percent of the total 22,206 

claims filed. 

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

comment. The Justice Department had no formal comments. The Civil 

Division reviewed the report for accuracy and provided technical 

comments which have been incorporated in this report where appropriate. 

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. 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) 512-8777 or at jonespl@gao.gov. William W. Crocker and Leo 

M. Barbour made key contributions to this report. 

Paul L. Jones, Director 

Homeland Security and Justice Issues 

Number of Pending 

Claims Is Down 32 

Percent 

Agency Comments 
Page 11 GAO-05-1002R Radiation Exposure Compensation 

List of Committees 

The Honorable Arlen Specter 

Chairman 

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

 The Honorable Jim Sensenbrenner, Jr. 

Chairman 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on the Judiciary 

House of Representatives 

(440448) 
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. 
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 

GAO’s Mission 

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