Radiation Exposure Compensation: Funding to Pay Claims May Be Inadequate to Meet Projected Needs
Published: 2003-04-10T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: On October 15, 1990, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) was enacted providing for payments to individuals who contracted certain cancers and other serious diseases presumably as a result of their exposure to radiation released during aboveground nuclear weapons tests or as a result of their employment associated with the uranium mining industry during the Cold War era. The RECA Amendments of 2000 required that GAO report to the Congress on the Department of Justice's administration of RECA not later than 18 months after the enactment of the amendments and every 18 months thereafter. GAO originally reported on the status of the program in September 2001. The objectives of this report are to update information on claims processing, payments from the Trust Fund, and administrative expenses.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Since the enactment of the RECA Amendments of 2000, which expanded eligibility for benefits, the RECA program has experienced a significant increase in the number of claims filed. Claims also are taking longer to process, and the number of pending claims has grown sharply. Since we last reported in September 2001, claims have increased from 7,819 to 14,987. Pending claims have increased 300 percent, from 653 to 2,654. About 3,200 new claims are anticipated in fiscal year 2003. In addition, the average time to process claims increased for each category of claimant. Given these circumstances, current funding for the RECA program to pay claims may be inadequate to meet projected needs. In fiscal year 2002, RECA was appropriated funds to cover a 10-year period--fiscal years 2002 through 2011 up to a specified amount per year--totaling $655 million. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) estimate that funding levels appropriated to the Trust Fund are insufficient to meet the projected claims. As a result, claims may be delayed, particularly through 2007. Since 1993, funding for DOJ administration of the program has been provided in a separate appropriation account for Radiation Exposure Compensation administrative expenses. There has been upward pressure on the program's administrative costs in recent years. For fiscal years 2001 and 2002, the RECA program may have exceeded its budget authority for administrative expenses. According to a program budget official, the RECA program spent about $100,000 in fiscal year 2001 and about $1 million for fiscal year 2002 in administrative expenses over the $1.996 million appropriated to the Radiation Exposure Compensation administrative expenses account in those fiscal years.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: From 1945 through 1962, the United States conducted a series of  aboveground atomic weapons tests as it built up its Cold War nuclear  arsenal. Many people exposed to radiation resulting from the nuclear  weapons development and testing program subsequently developed  serious diseases, including various types of cancer. On October 15, 1990, in  order to establish a procedure to make partial restitution to these victims  for their suffering associated with the radiation exposure, the Radiation  Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) was enacted. RECA provided that  the Attorney General be responsible for processing and adjudicating  claims under the act. The Department of Justice (DOJ) established the  Radiation Exposure Compensation Program (RECP) within its Civil  Division to administer its responsibilities under the act. RECP began  processing claims in April 1992. RECA has been amended several times,  including on July 10, 2000, when the RECA Amendments of 2000 were  enacted. The amendments of 2000 broadened the scope of eligibility for  benefits coverage to include new victim categories and modified the  criteria for determining eligibility for compensation.
The 2000 amendments also included a mandate that we report to the  Congress on DOJ’s administration of RECA not later than 18 months after  the enactment of the amendments and every 18 months thereafter. Our  first report was issued in September 2001 and covered program  performance from 1992 through fiscal year 2000. For this report, we are  updating (1) information on claims processing, (2) information on the  costs to administer the program, and (3) the status of Trust Fund  expenditures.
To determine the outcomes of the claims adjudication process, including  the number of approved and denied claims, the timeliness of the claims  adjudication process, and the amount of money awarded, we obtained  RECA-related case information from DOJ’s Civil Division’s case histories  database for fiscal years 1992 through 2002. To determine the cost of  administering RECP, we obtained data from the Civil Division’s Office of  Planning, Budget and Evaluation (OPB&E) for the end of fiscal years   1992 through 2002. To determine the amount of expenditures from the  Trust Fund, we evaluated annual Trust Fund activity from fiscal years   1992 through 2002 provided by OPB&E. Appendix I provides details on our  scope and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: RECA established a procedure to make partial restitution to individuals  who contracted serious diseases, such as certain types of cancers,  presumably resulting from their exposure to radiation from aboveground  nuclear tests or as a result of their employment in the uranium industry. In  addition to creating eligibility criteria for compensation, RECA created a  Trust Fund to pay claims. The Attorney General is responsible for  reviewing applications to determine whether applicants qualify for  compensation and establishing procedures for paying claims. To discharge  these two responsibilities, the Attorney General has issued implementing  regulations.
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. The RECA  Amendments of 2000 require that the Attorney General pay claims within   6 weeks of approval. If the victim is deceased, compensation may be  awarded to the victim’s eligible survivors (e.g., the victim’s spouse or  children). Appendix III shows RECP’s claims adjudication process,  including the procedures for refiling and administratively appealing denied  claims.
If a RECP claim does not satisfy the eligibility criteria, the claimant is  notified of the deficiency in writing. The claimant is allowed 60 days in  which to provide documentation correcting the deficiency. At the  expiration of the 60-day period, if the claim remains deficient, DOJ issues a  final denial decision explaining the reasons for the denial, and a copy is  sent to the claimant. Claimants may refile a claim with new information to  RECP up to two more times.
DOJ’s decision denying the claim may be appealed administratively to a  DOJ Appeals Officer, who can affirm or reverse the original decision or  remand the claim back to RECP for further action. Claimants who are  denied may also seek judicial review in a U.S. district court. Under DOJ  implementing regulations, claimants must first exhaust their  administrative remedies within DOJ prior to seeking judicial review.  Program officials said that from program inception in 1992 through  September 30, 2002, only eight claims denied by the RECP have been  brought to district court.
The RECA Amendments of 2000 broadened the scope of eligibility for  benefits coverage, including increasing the geographical areas covered,  allowing more individuals to qualify, and establishing a prompt payment  period. Figure 1 shows the affected areas under RECA.
Some of the major changes resulting from the amendments include     permitting eligible aboveground uranium mine employees, uranium mill  workers, and uranium ore transporters to qualify for compensation;  increasing the geographic areas included for eligibility and increasing  the time period considered for radiation exposure for uranium mine  employees;    expanding the list of specified diseases that may qualify individuals for  compensation to include other types of cancers and also noncancers;    decreasing the level of radiation exposure that is necessary to qualify  for compensation for uranium mine employees;    making certain medical documentation requirements are less stringent;    eliminating distinctions between smokers and nonsmokers pertaining  to diseases such as lung cancer and nonmalignant respiratory diseases;    construing all reasonable doubts about the eligibility of a claimant in  favor of the claimant;    allowing previously denied claimants to file up to three more times; and  requiring the Attorney General to ensure that a claim is paid within   6 weeks of approval.
On November 2, 2002, the 21st Century Department of Justice  Appropriations Authorization Act was enacted. This law included several  provisions that further amended RECA. The amendments affect eligibility  criteria and revise claims adjudication procedures. These provisions were  enacted near the end of our review, and we did not assess their potential  impact on the program. Some of the major changes include  re-insertion of a Downwinder area that was inadvertently eliminated  when RECA was amended in July 2000;  requiring that lung cancer must, like other compensable cancers, be  “primary” (i.e., originate in the specified organ or tissue);    allowing uranium miners to qualify by meeting either the 40 Working  Level Months (WLM) exposure standard or the 1-year duration of  employment standard; and    striking the requirement that, in cases where the claimant is living, a  claimant with lung cancer must submit the medical documentation  required for proof of a “non-malignant respiratory disease.”
Appendix II provides a more comprehensive summary of the key  provisions of RECA by claimant category.
In addition to RECP, other programs are authorized to provide  compensation to persons who have presumably become ill as a result of  working for the federal government in producing or testing nuclear  weapons. For example, the Radiation-Exposed Veterans Compensation  Act of 1988 provides, in general, monthly compensation for specific  diseases to veterans who were present at certain atomic bomb exercises,  served at Hiroshima and Nagasaki during specific periods of the post  World War II occupation of Japan, or were prisoners of war in Japan. In  addition, Title XXXVI of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense  Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 establishes the “Energy Employees  Occupational Illness Compensation Program” to compensate covered  employees or their survivors who contracted certain illnesses resulting  from exposure to certain ultra-hazardous materials during employment in  Department of Energy facilities that processed or produced radioactive  materials used in the production of atomic weapons. Certain uranium  employees who are eligible for compensation under RECA may also be  eligible for additional compensation and medical benefits under title  XXXVI. Specifically, uranium miners, uranium mill workers, and uranium  ore transporters, approved under Section 5 of RECA, are eligible to receive  under title XXXVI an additional $50,000 lump-sum payment plus medical  benefits.
section_title: Since Fiscal Year 2000, RECA Claims Increased Significantly, Processing Time Has Slowed, and the Number of Pending Claims Has Grown
paragraphs: The enactment of the RECA Amendments of 2000 was followed by a  significant increase in the number of claims. Although RECP received and  processed record numbers of claims in fiscal years 2001 and 2002, claims  are taking longer to process. In addition, the percentage of claims that are  adjudicated within 12 months has dropped, and the number of pending  claims has grown sharply.
subsections: section_title: RECA Claims Increased Significantly
paragraphs: Since its inception in April 1992 through the end of fiscal year 2002, RECP  has received 14,987 claims for compensation. The total number of RECA  claims filed has increased 92 percent, from 7,819 at the end of fiscal year  2000 to 14,987 by the end of fiscal year 2002. In fiscal year 2001, the year  following the enactment of the RECA 2000 Amendments, RECP received  over 3,800 claims—more claims than were filed in the prior 6 fiscal years  combined. There were over 3,300 claims filed in fiscal year 2002. At the  end of fiscal year 2002, there were 2,654 claims pending adjudication. In  fiscal year 2003, about 3,200 new filings are anticipated. Figure 2 shows  the number of claims filed each fiscal year.
section_title: Numbers of Claims Approved, Denied, and Pending
paragraphs: When RECP reviews a claim, the review process ends in one of two  possible outcomes—approval or denial of the claim. If approved, the claim  is forwarded to Treasury for payment. If denied, applicants may refile their  claims or pursue other avenues of appeal. Of the total   14,987 claims filed, RECP reached a disposition on 12,333. The remaining  2,654, or about 18 percent of claims, were pending, as of September 30,  2002. Of the claims that were adjudicated, 7,915, or about 64 percent, were  approved and 4,418, or about 36 percent, were denied. Excluding pending  claims, RECP approved about 56 percent of the uranium mine employee  claims, about 75 percent of the downwinder claims, about 34 percent of  the onsite participant claims, about 82 percent of the uranium mill claims,  and about 81 percent of the ore transporter claims. Table 1 shows the  number of claims approved, denied, and pending as of September 30, 2002.
Through the end of fiscal year 2002, RECP approved about $530.5 million  to claimants. RECP approved $230.5 million to eligible individuals based  on uranium mine employee applications (or about 43 percent of the total);  $247.2 million based on Downwinder applications (or about 47 percent of  the total); $33.4 million based on onsite participant applications (or about  6 percent of the total); $15.6 million based on uranium miller participant  applications (or about 3 percent of the total); and $3.8 million based on ore  transporter participant applications (or about 1 percent of the total).
section_title: Claims Taking Longer to Process
paragraphs: The RECA legislation requires that applications be processed within   1 year. However, the law permits applicants’ additional time to submit  more documentation to support their claims. About 89 percent of the  RECA applications were processed within 12 months over the period fiscal  years 1992 through 2000. By the end of fiscal year 2002, the percentage of  claims processed within 12 months was 79 percent. Table 2 shows the  processing times in months for applicants over the course of RECP. We  could not readily determine to what extent the 2,559 applications that  were not processed within 1 year were due entirely to the granting of  additional time.
As shown in table 3, the average number of days to process a claim has  increased in each category since our previous review. According to data  provided by DOJ officials, for fiscal years 1992 through 2002, the overall  average processing time from the date an application is filed until its  disposition was 327 days for uranium miner employee claims. This is up  from 269 days when we last reported. The average processing time for  Downwinder claims is 244 days. This is up from 190 days when we last  reported. The average processing time for onsite participant claims is  263 days. This is up from 245 days when we last reported. Uranium mill  employee claims and ore transporter employee claims are new categories  since we last reported. However, each of these claimant categories, on  average, took well over a year to process, 459 days and 392 days,  respectively. Table 3 shows the average number of days to process a claim  for fiscal years 1992 through 2002 and the increase in processing time by  claimant category since we last reported.
RECP officials attributed the increase in average time required to process  claims to differing characteristics associated with each claim and the  different factors involved in the review and application of the RECA  legislation, as amended, for the five claims categories. RECP officials told  us that since the inception of the program, its policy has been to assist  claimants in any way that it can. For example, rather than denying a claim  for a lack of documentation, program officials said that they allow  claimants additional time to provide corroborating documentation. In  many cases, claimants in the uranium industry were employed as millers,  miners, and ore transporters over the course of their career. RECP  officials said that if a claimant filed a uranium miner claim, but could not  provide sufficient documentation to satisfy RECA’s uranium miner  requirements, RECP would work with the claimant to obtain additional  documentation in order to satisfy the uranium miller or transporter  requirements where appropriate.
RECP officials cited other reasons for delays in processing claims,  including RECP’s need, in certain cases, to gather medical records to  address RECA’s statutory requirements for certain compensable diseases.  RECP said that in these instances, staff would conduct additional research  on behalf of the claimant or allow the claimant more time to provide the  proof necessary to meet the eligibility criteria. In addition to the increase  in the volume of claims, program officials said that the adjudication of the  newly added claimant categories (uranium millers and ore transporters)  presented challenges in terms of deciding the types of employment  records that existed and which records should be required and, therefore,  required additional processing time in some instances. Similarly, RECP  had to determine the medical evidence that would be sufficient to  establish proof of the new compensable diseases and illnesses added to  RECA.
section_title: Number of Pending Claims Is Growing
paragraphs: Since the amendments of 2000, RECA claims are coming in more rapidly,  and the processing of these claims is taking longer. As a result, the number  of pending claims has grown sharply, from 653 at the end of fiscal year  2000 to 2,654 by the end of fiscal year 2002, about a 300-percent increase.  In fiscal year 2003, RECP program officials estimate that 3,185 new claims  will be filed. It is likely that the number of pending claims will grow  further. According to DOJ budget justification documents for fiscal year  2003, because the 2000 amendments eased eligibility requirements, many  of the claims submitted in 2002 were re-filings from previously denied  claimants. According to program officials, the resolution of refiled claims  is more straightforward. Therefore, these claims were processed first to  speed payments to deserving claimants. But, program officials anticipate  that the pace of claims processing will be slower in fiscal year 2003 than in  fiscal year 2002, because the adjudications of the remaining claims in  process will be more time-consuming and difficult.
section_title: Funding to Pay Claims May Be Inadequate to Meet Projected Needs
paragraphs: RECA program funding is provided from two sources. The RECA Trust  Fund receives appropriated funds from which compensation is paid to  eligible claimants. Funding for DOJ to administer the program is provided  in a separate appropriation account for radiation exposure compensation  administrative expenses. Table 4 shows the RECA Trust Fund activity  from fiscal years 1992 through 2002, including the amounts appropriated  each year and the balance at the end of each fiscal year. Money remaining  in the Trust Fund at the end of any given fiscal year is generally carried  forward to the next fiscal year. The RECA Trust Fund received over   $200 million in the first 2 years of the program. Between fiscal years   1994 and 1996, the program was funded entirely by funds carried over  from prior year appropriations. Beginning in fiscal year 1997, Congress  resumed making annual appropriations to the RECA Trust Fund with the  exception of fiscal year 1999 when no funds were appropriated to the  Trust Fund. For fiscal year 2000, $11.6 million was available in the Trust  Fund. This amount included $8.4 million carried forward from the prior  year and a fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $3.2 million. For fiscal year  2001, $10.8 million was appropriated and $431,000 was carried over from  fiscal year 2000. Later, in fiscal year 2001, the RECA program received a  supplemental appropriation for “such sums as may be necessary” to pay  claims only through the end of that fiscal year. This resulted in payments  of $107.9 million for fiscal year 2001. Table 4 shows the Radiation  Exposure Compensation Trust Fund Activity.
subsections: section_title: Funds Appropriated to the RECA Trust Fund for the Next 10 Fiscal Years
paragraphs: The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002 provided  funding for the RECA Trust Fund to cover a 10-year period—fiscal years  2002 through 2011 up to a specified maximum amount per fiscal year. In  past years, Congress appropriated money each fiscal year. This act,  instead, provided specified amounts for subsequent fiscal years   2002 through 2011, obviating the need for new congressional action in  each of those fiscal years unless the Congress determined that additional  funding was necessary. Table 5 shows the Trust Fund appropriations  established in law.
section_title: Funds Appropriated for Fiscal Years 2003 through 2011 May Be Inadequate
paragraphs: According to estimates by CBO and RECA program officials, beginning in  fiscal year 2003, higher funding levels will be necessary or millions of  dollars in claims may be delayed. As shown in table 6, CBO estimates that  there will be a shortfall of $101 million in the Trust Fund through fiscal  year 2007, of which about $44 million will occur in fiscal year 2003.  Overall, CBO estimates a net shortage of $78 million through 2011.   Table 7 shows the RECA program estimate, which is similar to, but slightly  higher than CBO’s estimate. Overall, RECA estimates a shortage of   $107 million through 2011. Both organizations agree that most of the  funding shortfall will occur over the next 3 years.
Figure 3 shows the gap between the amount of funding currently  appropriated to the Trust Fund and CBO’s estimate through fiscal year  2011.
RECP officials’ estimates through fiscal year 2011 are similar to, but  slightly higher than, that of CBO’s. According to program officials, recent  trends indicate that projected claims will total about $762 million for fiscal  years 2002 through 2011. This would exceed the current total of annual  Trust Fund appropriations by a total of about $107 million and CBO’s  overall estimate by $29 million. DOJ’s estimate agrees with that of CBO, in  that most of the funding shortfall, about $72 million, will occur over the  next 3 years. According to RECP officials, a shortfall of funding available  in the Trust Fund in any given year can result in the claims going unpaid  until funds become available the following year. For example, RECA  officials said that in fiscal year 2002, funding was exhausted 3 weeks  before the close of the fiscal year, and based on the shortfalls projected,  funding is likely to be exhausted before the close of fiscal years   2003 through 2005. Table 7 shows RECP’s estimate of unfunded  requirements for Radiation Exposure Compensation compared with the  current Trust Fund appropriations as established in law.
section_title: Spending on Program Administration Has Increased
paragraphs: RECP officials told us that in addition to the significant increase in the  number of claims submitted, RECP received an unprecedented number of  telephone and written inquiries for forms and information, a development  that has further stretched the program’s operational resources. According  to a budget official, this has led to upward pressure on the overall costs to  administer the program. In an effort to keep up with the demand, program  officials began adding additional staff in fiscal year 2000. Table 8, shows  that RECP’s full-time equivalent (FTE) staff levels and spending on  program administration have increased in fiscal years 2001 and   2002 commensurate with a resurgence of claims.
subsections: section_title: Administrative Expenses May Have Exceeded Its Appropriations for Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002
paragraphs: Since fiscal year 1993, funding for DOJ administration of the program has  been provided in a separate appropriation account for Radiation Exposure  Compensation administrative expenses. The administrative expense  appropriation for the program was $1.996 million each for fiscal years   2001 and 2002.
There is an outstanding issue with respect to the program’s administrative  expenses for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 in that spending may have  exceeded its appropriations for those years. The Antideficiency Act  provides that an officer or employee of the U.S. government may not make  or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available  in an appropriation or fund, or enter into a contract or other obligation for  payment of money before an appropriation is made.
It is our understanding, on the basis of information provided to us during  our review, that total administrative expenses were $2.1 million for fiscal  year 2001 and $3 million for fiscal year 2002, while the appropriation for  Radiation Exposure Compensation administrative expenses was   $1.996 million for each of those fiscal years. Regarding fiscal year 2001, it  is our understanding that following an increase in the number of RECA  claims filed, around July 2001, the increase in spending arose from a task  order that was issued for $1 million to hire contract staff during fiscal  years 2001 and 2002. These expenses were paid with funds from DOJ’s  Legal Activities, Salaries and Expenses, General Legal Activities account.  The additional staff was reportedly used to assist in processing claims.
According to DOJ, an investigation has been initiated to ascertain if  possible Antideficiency Act violations occurred with respect to the  Radiation Exposure Compensation administrative expenses account.
Whenever an agency discovers evidence of a possible over obligation or  over expenditure, it must investigate that evidence. If the investigation  shows that the appropriation, in fact, is over obligated or over expended,  the Antideficiency Act requires reporting the over obligation or over  expenditure to the President and the Congress. OMB guidance on budget  execution, including requirements contained in the Antideficiency Act, is  included in OMB Circular A-11, Part 4 which requires, among other things,  that agencies include in such reports the primary reason for the violation,  a statement of any circumstances the agency believes to be extenuating, a  statement of the adequacy of the agency’s funds control system, and a  statement of whether any additional action need be taken to prevent  recurrence of the same type of violation. Given that DOJ has initiated an  investigation, we will monitor DOJ’s investigation of possible  Antideficiency Act violations in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 relating to the  Radiation Exposure Compensation administrative expenses account and  take appropriate actions, if necessary, at the conclusion of DOJ’s  investigation.
Fiscal year 2003 appropriations contained several changes to the  program’s administrative expenses appropriation. First, the Consolidated  Appropriations Resolution, 2003, appropriated funds for the program’s  administrative expenses in DOJ’s Legal Activities, Salaries and Expenses,  General Legal Activities account rather than in a separate appropriation.  Second, the language of the administrative expenses appropriation was  changed from a specified amount to a specified minimum amount.  Specifically, whereas fiscal year 2002 appropriations provided for  “necessary administrative expenses in accordance with the Radiation  Exposure Compensation Act, $1,996,000,” the fiscal year 2003  appropriation provides, in part, that “not less than $1,996,000 shall be  available for necessary administrative expenses in accordance with the  Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.” In accompanying Conference  Report language, the conferees said that they “expect the Civil Division to  absorb any additional requirements for processing RECA claims from  other resources available to the Civil Division.”
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Attorney General for review and  comment.  The Justice Department advised us they had no formal  comments. The Civil Division and the Justice Management Division  reviewed the report for accuracy and provided technical comments which  have been incorporated in this report where appropriate.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Funding available to pay claims under the RECA may be inadequate to  meet projected needs. Since the end of fiscal year 2000, the number of  unadjudicated claims has grown 300 percent from 653 to 2,654, and nearly  3,200 new claims are anticipated during fiscal year 2003. Both CBO and  DOJ estimate that money in the Trust Fund will be insufficient to pay all  the claims that are projected to be approved over the 2003-2011 period.  For fiscal years 2001 and 2002, RECP officials spent more for  administrative expenses than was appropriated. For fiscal year 2003,  Congress authorized DOJ’s Civil Division to absorb any additional funding  required for administrative expenses above the amount appropriated.  However, the availability of additional funds, if needed, for administrative  expenses is contingent on the Civil Division’s ability to absorb any  additional costs.
section_title: Recommendation
paragraphs: We recommend that the Attorney General consult with the congressional  committees of jurisdiction to develop a strategy to address the gap  between current funding levels and the amount of funding needed to pay  claims projected to be approved over the 2003-2011 period.
Copies of this report are being sent to the Attorney General; the Director,  Office Management and Budget; and any other interested parties. We will  also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report  will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact  William Crocker or me at (202) 512-8777 or jonesp@gao.gov.   R. Rochelle Burns, Geoffrey R. Hamilton, and Leo M. Barbour made key  contributions to this report.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To determine the outcomes of the claims adjudication process, including  the number of approved and denied claims, the timeliness of the claims  adjudication process, and the amount of money awarded, we interviewed  Radiation Exposure Compensation Program (RECP) officials and obtained  RECA-related case information from the Department of Justice’s (DOJ)  Civil Division’s case histories database for fiscal years 1992 through   2002. The Civil Division’s Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation  (OPB&E) provided financial information. We discussed the basis for any  major fluctuations with RECP officials. We did not independently verify  the accuracy of the RECA data extracted from the database.
To determine the cost of administering RECP, we obtained data from  OPB&E by object class for the end of fiscal years 1992 through 2002. The  cost provided includes items such as personnel compensation and  benefits, travel and transportation of persons, and printing and  reproduction costs. To determine full-time equivalent (FTE) staffing levels,  the office provided us with FTE staff levels for RECP at the end of fiscal  years 1992 through 2002.
To determine the nature of expenditures from the Trust Fund, we  evaluated annual Trust Fund activity from fiscal years 1992 through   2002 provided by OPB&E. During our initial review of the RECP in   2001, we verified that payments made were consistent with data contained  in DOJ’s Civil Divisions case histories database. We did not revalidate the  information from the database during this review.
To validate the estimates of future Trust Fund requirements, we met with  Congressional Budget Office (CBO) officials and examined their source  data, methodology, assumptions, calculations, and results. On the basis of   our examination, we found that CBO’s estimates were sound and  reasonable. RECA program officials said that they are confident in the  data necessary to support improved estimates for the next 3 years (fiscal  years 2003 through 2005); however, beyond that, their best educated guess  is to extend the slope of the funding curve out another 5 or more years for  RECP. We focused on DOJ’s administration of RECA from its inception in  fiscal year 1992 through the end of fiscal year 2002.
We conducted our review from August 2002 through February 2003, in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix II: Summary of Key Radiation Exposure Compensation Program Provisions by Claimant Category
subsections: section_title: Time periods Any time from January 1, 1942-December 31, 1971.
paragraphs: Location  Colorado, New  Mexico, Arizona,  Wyoming, South  Dakota,  Washington, Utah,  Idaho, North  Dakota, Oregon,  and Texas.
Examples of  diseases covered  Other  Lung cancer and  nonmalignant  respiratory disease.
A period of at least 2  years from January 21,  1951-October 31, 1958,  or for the period  between June 30 and  July 31, 1962.
Certain Utah,  Nevada, and  Arizona counties  downwind from the  Nevada test site.
Certain types of  leukemia, lung  cancer, multiple  myeloma,  lymphomas, and  primary cancer of  the thyroid, male or  female breast,  esophagus,  stomach, pharynx,  small intestine,  pancreas, bile ducts,  gall bladder, salivary  gland, urinary  bladder, brain,  colon, ovary, or liver.
Victims must have  been exposed to at  least 40 working level  months of radiation or  determine  employment in a  mine for 1 full year.  Aboveground miners  are included.  Additional states may  apply for inclusion as  a covered state.  For those exposed  prior to age 21, and  subsequently  contract any  medically recognized  form of acute or  chronic leukemia,  other than chronic  lymphocytic  leukemia, a period of  only 1 year, from  January 21, 1951 to  October 31, 1958, is  required   atmospheric nuclear  tests from July 16,  1945-December 31,  1962.
Onsite testing  areas include the  Nevada, Pacific,  Trinity, and the  South Atlantic test  sites.
Certain types of  leukemia, lung  cancer, and  lymphomas, multiple  myeloma, and  primary cancer of  the thyroid, male or  female breast,  esophagus,  stomach, pharynx,  small intestine,  pancreas, bile ducts,  gall bladder, salivary  gland, urinary  bladder, brain,  colon, ovary, or liver  (certain types).
The payment to the  victim may be offset  by payments  received by the victim  from the Department  of Veterans Affairs  based on the same  radiation-related  illness.
Time periods  Any time from January  1, 1942-December 31,  1971.
Location  Colorado, New  Mexico, Arizona,  Wyoming, South  Dakota,  Washington, Utah,  Idaho, North  Dakota, Oregon,  and Texas.
Examples of  diseases covered  Other  Lung cancer,  nonmalignant  respiratory diseases,  renal cancer, and  other chronic renal  disease, including  nephritis and kidney  tubal tissue injury.
Victims must have  worked for at least 1  year during the  relevant time period.
Any time from January  1, 1942-December 31,  1971.
Colorado, New  Mexico, Arizona,  Wyoming, South  Dakota,  Washington, Utah,  Idaho, North  Dakota, Oregon,  and Texas.
Lung cancer,  nonmalignant  respiratory diseases,  renal cancer, and  other chronic renal  disease, including  nephritis and kidney  tubal tissue injury.
Victims must have  worked for at least 1  year during the  relevant time period.
Also includes victim’s survivors.
section_title: Appendix III: RECP’s Claims Adjudication Process
paragraphs: Appendix III: RECP’s Claims Adjudication  Process  The RECP attorney may request additional supporting information before making a recommendation  (for approval or denial) to the Assistant Director.
As of July 10, 2000, based on the 2000 amendments, an applicant can file a claim for consideration  up to three times.
Applicants whose claims have been denied are permitted to refile their claims if (1) they provide  information to correct the deficiency that was the basis for the last denial under the original RECA  legislation or (2) they believe that they are now eligible as a result of the 1999 regulatory changes  and/or the 2000 amendments.
The Appeals Officer may (1) reverse the denial (award compensation to the claimant), (2) affirm the  denial (deny compensation to the claimant), or (3) remand the case to RECP. The decision is  equivalent to a negative determination for the other two options.