Radiation Exposure Compensation: Funding to Pay Claims May Be
Inadequate to Meet Projected Needs (10-APR-03, GAO-03-481).
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.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-03-481
ACCNO: A06615
TITLE: Radiation Exposure Compensation: Funding to Pay Claims
May Be Inadequate to Meet Projected Needs
DATE: 04/10/2003
SUBJECT: Administrative costs
Claims processing
Claims settlement
Health hazards
Trust funds
Radiation exposure hazards
Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust
Fund
Radiation Exposure Compensation Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-481
Report to Congressional Committees
United States General Accounting Office
GAO
April 2003 RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION
Funding to Pay Claims May Be Inadequate to Meet Projected Needs
GAO- 03- 481
Since the enactment of the RECA Amendments of 2000, which expanded
eligibility for benefits, the RECA program has experienced a significant
increase in the number of claims filed. Claims also are taking longer to
process, and the number of pending claims has grown sharply. Since we last
reported in September 2001, claims have increased from 7,819 to 14, 987.
Pending claims have increased 300 percent, from 653 to 2,654. About 3,200
new claims are anticipated in fiscal year 2003. In addition, the average
time to process claims increased for each category of claimant.
Given these circumstances, current funding for the RECA program to pay
claims may be inadequate to meet projected needs. In fiscal year 2002,
RECA was appropriated funds to cover a 10- year period* fiscal years 2002
through 2011 up to a specified amount per year* totaling $655 million. The
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Department of Justice (DOJ)
estimate that funding levels appropriated to the Trust Fund are
insufficient to meet the projected claims. As a result, claims may be
delayed, particularly through 2007. Since 1993, funding for DOJ
administration of the program has
been provided in a separate appropriation account for Radiation Exposure
Compensation administrative expenses. For fiscal years 2001 and 2002, the
RECA program may have exceeded its appropriation for administrative
expenses. According to a program budget official, the RECA program spent
about $100,000 in fiscal year 2001 and about $1 million for fiscal year
2002 in administrative expenses over the $1. 996 million appropriated to
the RECA expenses account in those fiscal years. For fiscal year 2003,
Congress authorized DOJ*s Civil Division to absorb any additional funding
required for administrative expenses above the amount appropriated.
However, the availability of additional funds, if needed, for
administrative expenses is contingent on the Civil Division*s ability to
absorb any additional costs.
RECA Trust Fund Appropriations and CBO Estimates (Dollars in millions) 0
50
100 150
200 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002
Source: The Congressional Budget Office data.
CBO estimated requirements Actual current appropriations
Appropriations and CBO Estimates (Dollars in millions) Fiscal Year
Shortfall Surplus
On October 15, 1990, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) was
enacted providing for payments to individuals who contracted certain
cancers and other serious diseases presumably
as a result of their exposure to radiation released during aboveground
nuclear weapons
tests or as a result of their employment associated with the uranium
mining industry during the Cold War era. The RECA Amendments of 2000
required that GAO report to the Congress on the Department of
Justice*s administration of RECA not later than 18 months after the
enactment of the amendments and every 18 months thereafter. GAO originally
reported on the status of the program in September 2001. The objectives of
this report are to
update information on claims processing, payments from the Trust Fund, and
administrative
expenses. GAO recommends that the Attorney General consult with the
congressional committees of jurisdiction to develop a strategy to address
the gap between current
funding levels and the amount of funding needed to pay claims projected to
be approved over the 2003- 2011 period. www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt?
GAO- 03- 481. To view the full report, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above. For more information, contact,
Paul L. Jones at (202) 512- 8777 or jonesp@ gao. gov. Highlights of GAO-
03- 481, a report to
Congressional Committees
April 2003
RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION
Funding to Pay Claims May Be Inadequate to Meet Projected Needs
Page i GAO- 03- 481 Radiation Exposure Compensation Letter 1 Results in
Brief 2 Background 3 Since Fiscal Year 2000, RECA Claims Increased
Significantly, Processing Time Has Slowed, and the Number of Pending
Claims Has Grown 7 Funding to Pay Claims May Be Inadequate to Meet
Projected Needs 12 Spending on Program Administration Has Increased 16
Agency Comments 19 Conclusions 19 Recommendation 19 Appendix I Scope and
Methodology 22
Appendix II Summary of Key Radiation Exposure Compensation Program
Provisions by Claimant Category 23
Appendix III RECP*s Claims Adjudication Process 26
Tables
Table 1: Number of RECA Claims Approved, Denied, and Pending through
Fiscal Year 2002 9 Table 2: Processing Time in Months for Approved and
Denied
Claims for Fiscal Years 1992 through 2002 10 Table 3: Average Number of
Days to Process a Claim for Fiscal Years 1992 through 2002 11 Table 4:
Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund Activity, Fiscal Years 1992
through 2002 13 Table 5: Appropriations to Radiation Exposure Compensation
Trust Fund, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2011 14 Table 6: CBO Estimate of the
Funding Shortfall for the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund for
Fiscal Years 2002 through 2011 14 Table 7: DOJ Estimate of the Funding
Shortfall for the Radiation
Exposure Compensation Trust Fund, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2011 16
Contents
Page ii GAO- 03- 481 Radiation Exposure Compensation Table 8: Average
Full- Time Equivalent Staff Levels and Administrative Costs for Processing
RECA Claims for
Fiscal Years 1992 through 2002 17 Figures
Figure 1: Map of RECA- Covered Areas 5 Figure 2: Number of RECA Claims
Filed from Fiscal Years 1992 through 2002 and Fiscal Year 2003 Estimate 8
Figure 3: Funding Shortfall between the Amount of Funding Currently
Appropriated to the Trust Fund and CBO*s Estimate through Fiscal Year 2011
15 Abbreviations
CBO Congressional Budget Office DOJ Department of Justice FTE full- time
equivalent OPB& E Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation RECA Radiation
Exposure Compensation Act RECP Radiation Exposure Compensation Program WLM
Working Level Months
This is a work of the U. S. Government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. It may contain
copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. Permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce copyrighted
materials separately from GAO*s product.
Page 1 GAO- 03- 481 Radiation Exposure Compensation April 14, 2003
Congressional Committees From 1945 through 1962, the United States
conducted a series of
aboveground atomic weapons tests as it built up its Cold War nuclear
arsenal. Many people exposed to radiation resulting from the nuclear
weapons development and testing program subsequently developed serious
diseases, including various types of cancer. On October 15, 1990, in order
to establish a procedure to make partial restitution to these victims for
their suffering associated with the radiation exposure, 1 the Radiation
Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) was enacted. 2 RECA provided that the
Attorney General be responsible for processing and adjudicating claims
under the act. The Department of Justice (DOJ) established the Radiation
Exposure Compensation Program (RECP) within its Civil Division to
administer its responsibilities under the act. RECP began processing
claims in April 1992. RECA has been amended several times, 3 including on
July 10, 2000, when the RECA Amendments of 2000 were
enacted. 4 The amendments of 2000 broadened the scope of eligibility for
benefits coverage to include new victim categories and modified the
criteria for determining eligibility for compensation.
The 2000 amendments also included a mandate that we report to the Congress
on DOJ*s administration of RECA not later than 18 months after the
enactment of the amendments and every 18 months thereafter. Our first
report was issued in September 2001 and covered program performance from
1992 through fiscal year 2000. 5 For this report, we are updating (1)
information on claims processing, (2) information on the
1 RECA recognizes that the amount of money paid does not completely
compensate for the burdens placed upon such individuals. 2 P. L. 101- 426,
104 Stat. 920 (1990).
3 Early amendments included November 1990 amendments (P. L. 101- 510, 104
Stat. 1835, 1837) that among other things expanded eligibility to include
onsite participants and October 1992 amendments (P. L. 102- 486, 106 Stat.
3131) that provided for the judicial review of denied claims.
4 P. L. 106- 245, 114 Stat. 501 (2000). 5 U. S. General Accounting Office,
Radiation Exposure Compensation: Analysis of Justice*s Program
Administration, GAO- 01- 1043, (Washington, D. C: Sept. 17, 2001).
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO- 03- 481 Radiation Exposure Compensation costs to administer
the program, and (3) the status of Trust Fund expenditures.
To determine the outcomes of the claims adjudication process, including
the number of approved and denied claims, the timeliness of the claims
adjudication process, and the amount of money awarded, we obtained RECA-
related case information from DOJ*s Civil Division*s case histories
database for fiscal years 1992 through 2002. To determine the cost of
administering RECP, we obtained data from the Civil Division*s Office of
Planning, Budget and Evaluation (OPB& E) for the end of fiscal years 1992
through 2002. To determine the amount of expenditures from the Trust Fund,
we evaluated annual Trust Fund activity from fiscal years 1992 through
2002 provided by OPB& E. Appendix I provides details on our scope and
methodology. The enactment of the RECA Amendments of 2000 was followed by
a
significant increase in the number of claims filed and processed. The
number of claims filed has increased 92 percent, from 7,819 through the
end of fiscal year 2000 to 14,987 through the end of fiscal year 2002.
Claims are taking longer to process, and the number of pending (in
process)
claims has grown sharply since we last reported in September 200l. The
number of pending claims rose about 300 percent, from 653 at the end of
fiscal year 2000 to 2,654 by the end of fiscal year 2002. The percentage
of
claims processed within 12 months has dropped from 89 percent at the end
of fiscal year 2000 to 79 percent by the end of fiscal year 2002.
The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002 provided
funding for the RECA Trust Fund to cover a 10- year period* fiscal years
2002 through 2011 up to a specified maximum amount per year. According to
DOJ officials, fiscal year 2002 funding was exhausted before the end of
the fiscal year, and funding is likely to be exhausted before the close of
fiscal year 2003. A total of $655 million is appropriated for fiscal years
2002 through 2011. However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and DOJ
estimate that the funding levels will be insufficient to meet the
projected claims. The greatest anticipated shortfall, between $72 million
and $87 million, will occur over fiscal years 2003 through 2005. According
to a budget official, there has also been upward pressure on the costs to
administer the program in recent years. Since 1993, funding for DOJ to
administer the program has been provided in a separate appropriation
account for Radiation Exposure Compensation administrative expenses. There
is an outstanding issue with respect to the program*s administrative
expenses for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 in that spending may have Results
in Brief
Page 3 GAO- 03- 481 Radiation Exposure Compensation exceeded its
appropriations for those years. The Antideficiency Act provides that an
officer or employee of the U. S. government may not make
or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available in
an appropriation or fund, or enter into a contract or other obligation for
payment of money before an appropriation is made. Total administrative
expenses were $2.1 million for fiscal year 2001 and $3 million for fiscal
year 2002, while the appropriation for Radiation Exposure Compensation
administrative expenses was $1.996 million for each of those fiscal years.
The Consolidated Appropriation Resolution of 2003, 6 contained several
changes to the program*s administrative expenses appropriation. For
example, the language of the administrative expenses appropriation was
changed from a specified amount of $1,996,000 to a specified minimum
amount of *not less than $1,996,000.* Accompanying conference report
language provides that the conferees expect the Civil Division to absorb
any additional requirements for processing RECA claims from other
resources available to the Civil Division.
RECA established a procedure to make partial restitution to individuals
who contracted serious diseases, such as certain types of cancers,
presumably resulting from their exposure to radiation from aboveground
nuclear tests or as a result of their employment in the uranium industry.
In addition to creating eligibility criteria for compensation, RECA
created a Trust Fund to pay claims. The Attorney General is responsible
for reviewing applications to determine whether applicants qualify for
compensation and establishing procedures for paying claims. To discharge
these two responsibilities, the Attorney General has issued implementing
regulations. 7 The regulations established RECP within DOJ*s Civil
Division and charged
it with administering claims adjudication and compensation under the act.
To file for compensation, the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary,
either acting on his or her own behalf or represented by counsel, submits
the appropriate claim forms along with corroborating documentation to
RECP, whose claims examiners and legal staff review and adjudicate the
claims. If the claim is approved, a letter is sent notifying the person of
the approval and enclosing an *acceptance of payment* form for the
claimant
6 P. L. 108- 7, 117 Stat. 11 (2003). 7 DOJ implementing regulations for
the RECA program are found at Part 79 of Title 28 Code of Federal
Regulations (28 C. F. R. Part 79). Background
Page 4 GAO- 03- 481 Radiation Exposure Compensation to return to RECP.
According to program officials, upon receipt of a signed acceptance of
payment form, DOJ authorizes the Treasury
Department to make payment from the Trust Fund. The RECA Amendments of
2000 require that the Attorney General pay claims within 6 weeks of
approval. If the victim is deceased, compensation may be awarded to the
victim*s eligible survivors (e. g., the victim*s spouse or children).
Appendix III shows RECP*s claims adjudication process, including the
procedures for refiling and administratively appealing denied claims.
If a RECP claim does not satisfy the eligibility criteria, the claimant is
notified of the deficiency in writing. The claimant is allowed 60 days in
which to provide documentation correcting the deficiency. At the
expiration of the 60- day period, if the claim remains deficient, DOJ
issues a final denial decision explaining the reasons for the denial, and
a copy is sent to the claimant. Claimants may refile a claim with new
information to RECP up to two more times.
DOJ*s decision denying the claim may be appealed administratively to a DOJ
Appeals Officer, who can affirm or reverse the original decision or remand
the claim back to RECP for further action. Claimants who are denied may
also seek judicial review in a U. S. district court. Under DOJ
implementing regulations, claimants must first exhaust their
administrative remedies within DOJ prior to seeking judicial review.
Program officials said that from program inception in 1992 through
September 30, 2002, only eight claims denied by the RECP have been brought
to district court.
The RECA Amendments of 2000 broadened the scope of eligibility for
benefits coverage, including increasing the geographical areas covered,
allowing more individuals to qualify, and establishing a prompt payment
period. Figure 1 shows the affected areas under RECA.
Page 5 GAO- 03- 481 Radiation Exposure Compensation Figure 1: Map of RECA-
Covered Areas
Some of the major changes resulting from the amendments include
permitting eligible aboveground uranium mine employees, uranium mill
workers, and uranium ore transporters to qualify for compensation;
increasing the geographic areas included for eligibility and increasing
the time period considered for radiation exposure for uranium mine
employees;
Test site
CO UT UT AZ AZ NV NV
ND SD WY WA
OR TX NM
Uranium worker states Downwind counties
Source: Department of Justice, Civil Division. ID
Page 6 GAO- 03- 481 Radiation Exposure Compensation expanding the list
of specified diseases that may qualify individuals for compensation to
include other types of cancers and also noncancers;
decreasing the level of radiation exposure that is necessary to qualify
for compensation for uranium mine employees; 8 making certain medical
documentation requirements are less stringent; eliminating distinctions
between smokers and nonsmokers pertaining
to diseases such as lung cancer and nonmalignant respiratory diseases;
construing all reasonable doubts about the eligibility of a claimant in
favor of the claimant; allowing previously denied claimants to file up
to three more times; and requiring the Attorney General to ensure that a
claim is paid within
6 weeks of approval. On November 2, 2002, the 21st Century Department of
Justice Appropriations Authorization Act 9 was enacted. This law included
several provisions that further amended RECA. The amendments affect
eligibility
criteria and revise claims adjudication procedures. These provisions were
enacted near the end of our review, and we did not assess their potential
impact on the program. Some of the major changes include
re- insertion of a Downwinder area that was inadvertently eliminated
when RECA was amended in July 2000; requiring that lung cancer must,
like other compensable cancers, be
*primary* (i. e., originate in the specified organ or tissue); allowing
uranium miners to qualify by meeting either the 40 Working
Level Months (WLM) exposure standard or the 1- year duration of employment
standard; and striking the requirement that, in cases where the claimant
is living, a claimant with lung cancer must submit the medical
documentation
required for proof of a *non- malignant respiratory disease.* Appendix
II provides a more comprehensive summary of the key
provisions of RECA by claimant category. In addition to RECP, other
programs are authorized to provide compensation to persons who have
presumably become ill as a result of working for the federal government in
producing or testing nuclear
8 The minimum radiation exposure level for uranium mine employees was
reduced from a range of 200 to 500 WLMs to 40 WLMs. A WLM is a measure of
radiation exposure. WLMs are calculated by multiplying the number of
months an individual worked in a particular mine by the radon level in the
mine during the time of employment.
9 P. L. 107- 273, 116 Stat. 1758 (2002).
Page 7 GAO- 03- 481 Radiation Exposure Compensation weapons. For example,
the Radiation- Exposed Veterans Compensation Act of 1988 10 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 11 establishes the *Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program* to compensate covered
employees or their survivors who contracted certain illnesses resulting
from exposure to certain ultra- hazardous materials during employment in
Department of Energy facilities that processed or produced radioactive
materials used in the production of atomic weapons. Certain uranium
employees who are eligible for compensation under RECA may also be
eligible for additional compensation and medical benefits under title
XXXVI. Specifically, uranium miners, uranium mill workers, and uranium ore
transporters, approved under Section 5 of RECA, are eligible to receive
under title XXXVI an additional $50,000 lump- sum payment plus medical
benefits.
The enactment of the RECA Amendments of 2000 was followed by a significant
increase in the number of claims. Although RECP received and processed
record numbers of claims in fiscal years 2001 and 2002, claims are taking
longer to process. In addition, the percentage of claims that are
adjudicated within 12 months has dropped, and the number of pending claims
has grown sharply.
Since its inception in April 1992 through the end of fiscal year 2002,
RECP has received 14,987 claims for compensation. The total number of RECA
claims filed has increased 92 percent, from 7,819 at the end of fiscal
year 2000 to 14, 987 by the end of fiscal year 2002. In fiscal year 2001,
the year
10 P. L. 100- 321, 102 Stat. 485 (1988). 11 P. L. 106- 398, 114 Stat. 1654
(2000). Since Fiscal Year
2000, RECA Claims Increased Significantly, Processing Time Has
Slowed, and the Number of Pending Claims Has Grown
RECA Claims Increased Significantly
Page 8 GAO- 03- 481 Radiation Exposure Compensation following the
enactment of the RECA 2000 Amendments, RECP received over 3,800 claims*
more claims than were filed in the prior 6 fiscal years
combined. There were over 3,300 claims filed in fiscal year 2002. At the
end of fiscal year 2002, there were 2,654 claims pending adjudication. In
fiscal year 2003, about 3,200 new filings are anticipated. Figure 2 shows
the number of claims filed each fiscal year.
Figure 2: Number of RECA Claims Filed from Fiscal Years 1992 through 2002
and Fiscal Year 2003 Estimate When RECP reviews a claim, the review
process ends in one of two possible outcomes* approval or denial of the
claim. If approved, the claim is forwarded to Treasury for payment. If
denied, applicants may refile their claims or pursue other avenues of
appeal. Of the total 14,987 claims filed, RECP reached a disposition on
12,333. The remaining 2,654, or about 18 percent of claims, were pending,
as of September 30, 2002. Of the claims that were adjudicated, 7,915, or
about 64 percent, were approved and 4,418, or about 36 percent, were
denied. Excluding pending claims, RECP approved about 56 percent of the
uranium mine employee
claims, about 75 percent of the downwinder claims, about 34 percent of the
onsite participant claims, about 82 percent of the uranium mill claims,
Numbers of Claims
Approved, Denied, and Pending
Number of RECA claims filed
Source: GAO's analysis of RECA claims data from DOJ's Civil DIvision's
case histories database. a Estimate.
Fiscal year
3,200 3,345 3,822
837 394 358 408 551 827
1,207 1,340 1,898
0 500
1,000 1,500
2,000 2,500
3,000 3,500
4,000 2003 a 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992
Page 9 GAO- 03- 481 Radiation Exposure Compensation and about 81 percent
of the ore transporter claims. Table 1 shows the number of claims
approved, denied, and pending as of September 30, 2002.
Table 1: Number of RECA Claims Approved, Denied, and Pending through
Fiscal Year 2002 Category of claim Uranium mine
employees Downwinders Onsite participants Uranium mill
employees Ore transporter employees Total
Approved 2,311 4,945 465 156 38 7,915
Denied 1,786 1,688 901 34 9 4,418
Pending 553 1,677 247 138 39 2,654 Total 4,650 8,310 1,613 328 86 14,987
Source: DOJ*s Civil Division*s case histories database. Note: Approved,
denied, and pending data at the time of our review. Through the end of
fiscal year 2002, RECP approved about $530.5 million
to claimants. 12 RECP approved $230.5 million to eligible individuals
based on uranium mine employee applications (or about 43 percent of the
total); $247.2 million based on Downwinder applications (or about 47
percent of
the total); $33.4 million based on onsite participant applications (or
about 6 percent of the total); $15.6 million based on uranium miller
participant applications (or about 3 percent of the total); and $3.8
million based on ore transporter participant applications (or about 1
percent of the total).
The RECA legislation requires that applications be processed within 1
year. However, the law permits applicants* additional time to submit more
documentation to support their claims. 13 About 89 percent of the RECA
applications were processed within 12 months over the period fiscal years
1992 through 2000. By the end of fiscal year 2002, the percentage of
claims processed within 12 months was 79 percent. Table 2 shows the
processing times in months for applicants over the course of RECP. We
could not readily determine to what extent the 2,559 applications that
were not processed within 1 year were due entirely to the granting of
additional time.
12 In certain cases, awarded compensation may not actually be paid. For
example, an eligible individual may refuse to accept payment or the victim
may pass away before the money is disbursed and an eligible beneficiary
cannot be located.
13 RECA Section 6 (d) (3) excludes this time from the 12- month period.
Processing time begins when a claim is received by RECP and ends at case
disposition. Claims Taking Longer
to Process
Page 10 GAO- 03- 481 Radiation Exposure Compensation Table 2: Processing
Time in Months for Approved and Denied Claims for Fiscal Years 1992
through 2002 Applicant type Processing time in months a Uranium mine
employees Downwinders Onsite
participants Uranium mill
employees Ore
transporter employees Total Percent
of total
12 months or less 2,808 5,773 1,039 105 25 9,750 79.2 13 months 302 260 78
18 4 662 5.4 14 months 196 158 45 14 6 419 3.4 15 months 146 135 46 10 3
340 2.8 16 months 113 88 26 10 3 240 1.9 17 months 59 63 20 12 1 155 1.3
18 to 24 months 318 126 64 19 5 532 4.3 More than 24 months 148 19 42 2 0
211 1.7 Subtotal over 12 months 2,559 Total 4,090 6,622 1,360 190 47
12,309 100
Source: DOJ*s Civil Division*s case histories database. a Appealed and
pending cases have been excluded.
As shown in table 3, the average number of days to process a claim has
increased in each category since our previous review. According to data
provided by DOJ officials, for fiscal years 1992 through 2002, the overall
average processing time from the date an application is filed until its
disposition was 327 days for uranium miner employee claims. This is up
from 269 days when we last reported. The average processing time for
Downwinder claims is 244 days. This is up from 190 days when we last
reported. The average processing time for onsite participant claims is 263
days. This is up from 245 days when we last reported. Uranium mill
employee claims and ore transporter employee claims are new categories
since we last reported. However, each of these claimant categories, on
average, took well over a year to process, 459 days and 392 days,
respectively. Table 3 shows the average number of days to process a claim
for fiscal years 1992 through 2002 and the increase in processing time by
claimant category since we last reported.
Page 11 GAO- 03- 481 Radiation Exposure Compensation Table 3: Average
Number of Days to Process a Claim for Fiscal Years 1992 through 2002
Applicant type Uranium
mine employees Downwinders Onsite
participants Uranium
mill employee
Ore transporter
employee Average days to process claims End of fiscal year
2000 269 190 245 a a End of fiscal year 2002 327 244 263 459 392 Increase
in days 58 54 18 a a Source: GAO*s analysis of information from DOJ*s
Civil Division*s Case Histories Database. a Data not available.
RECP officials attributed the increase in average time required to process
claims to differing characteristics associated with each claim and the
different factors involved in the review and application of the RECA
legislation, as amended, for the five claims categories. RECP officials
told us that since the inception of the program, its policy has been to
assist claimants in any way that it can. For example, rather than denying
a claim for a lack of documentation, program officials said that they
allow
claimants additional time to provide corroborating documentation. In many
cases, claimants in the uranium industry were employed as millers, miners,
and ore transporters over the course of their career. RECP officials said
that if a claimant filed a uranium miner claim, but could not provide
sufficient documentation to satisfy RECA*s uranium miner requirements,
RECP would work with the claimant to obtain additional documentation in
order to satisfy the uranium miller or transporter requirements where
appropriate.
RECP officials cited other reasons for delays in processing claims,
including RECP*s need, in certain cases, to gather medical records to
address RECA*s statutory requirements for certain compensable diseases.
RECP said that in these instances, staff would conduct additional research
on behalf of the claimant or allow the claimant more time to provide the
proof necessary to meet the eligibility criteria. In addition to the
increase in the volume of claims, program officials said that the
adjudication of the newly added claimant categories (uranium millers and
ore transporters) presented challenges in terms of deciding the types of
employment records that existed and which records should be required and,
therefore, required additional processing time in some instances.
Similarly, RECP
had to determine the medical evidence that would be sufficient to
Page 12 GAO- 03- 481 Radiation Exposure Compensation establish proof of
the new compensable diseases and illnesses added to RECA.
Since the amendments of 2000, RECA claims are coming in more rapidly, and
the processing of these claims is taking longer. As a result, the number
of pending claims has grown sharply, from 653 at the end of fiscal year
2000 to 2,654 by the end of fiscal year 2002, about a 300- percent
increase. In fiscal year 2003, RECP program officials estimate that 3,185
new claims will be filed. It is likely that the number of pending claims
will grow further. According to DOJ budget justification documents for
fiscal year 2003, because the 2000 amendments eased eligibility
requirements, many of the claims submitted in 2002 were re- filings from
previously denied claimants. According to program officials, the
resolution of refiled claims is more straightforward. Therefore, these
claims were processed first to
speed payments to deserving claimants. But, program officials anticipate
that the pace of claims processing will be slower in fiscal year 2003 than
in fiscal year 2002, because the adjudications of the remaining claims in
process will be more time- consuming and difficult.
RECA program funding is provided from two sources. The RECA Trust Fund
receives appropriated funds from which compensation is paid to eligible
claimants. Funding for DOJ to administer the program is provided in a
separate appropriation account for radiation exposure compensation
administrative expenses. Table 4 shows the RECA Trust Fund activity from
fiscal years 1992 through 2002, including the amounts appropriated each
year and the balance at the end of each fiscal year. Money remaining in
the Trust Fund at the end of any given fiscal year is generally carried
forward to the next fiscal year. The RECA Trust Fund received over $200
million in the first 2 years of the program. Between fiscal years 1994 and
1996, the program was funded entirely by funds carried over from prior
year appropriations. Beginning in fiscal year 1997, Congress resumed
making annual appropriations to the RECA Trust Fund with the exception of
fiscal year 1999 when no funds were appropriated to the Trust Fund. For
fiscal year 2000, $11.6 million was available in the Trust Fund. This
amount included $8.4 million carried forward from the prior year and a
fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $3.2 million. For fiscal year 2001,
$10.8 million was appropriated and $431,000 was carried over from fiscal
year 2000. Later, in fiscal year 2001, the RECA program received a
supplemental appropriation for *such sums as may be necessary* to pay
claims only through the end of that fiscal year. This resulted in payments
Number of Pending
Claims Is Growing Funding to Pay Claims May Be Inadequate to Meet
Projected Needs
Page 13 GAO- 03- 481 Radiation Exposure Compensation of $107.9 million for
fiscal year 2001. Table 4 shows the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust
Fund Activity.
Table 4: Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund Activity, Fiscal Years
1992 through 2002
Dollars in thousands Fiscal year Carry forward from prior year
Appropriated
funds Interest earned
from government securities Total
available Payments Balance at end of fiscal year
1992 0 $30,000 0 $30,000 $22,454 $7,546 1993 $7,546 $170,750 $2,493
$180,789 $57,390 $123,399 1994 $123,399 0 $2,300 $125,699 $60,651 $65,048
1995 $65,048 0 $1,365 $66,413 $31,242 $35,171 1996 $35,171 0 $464 $35,635
$21,133 $14,502 1997 $14,502 $30,000 $332 $44,834 $15,882 $28,952 1998
$28,952 $4,381 0 $33,333 $12,339 $20,994 1999 $20,994 0 $259 $21,253
$12,822 $8,431 2000 $8,431 $3,200 0 $11,631 $11,200 $431 2001 $431
$107,483 a 0 $107,914 $107,914 0 2002 0 $172,000 0 $172,000 $171,551 $449
Source: DOJ*s Civil Division*s Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation.
a Consists of an initial appropriation of $10.8 million and supplemental
funding of $96.683 million.
The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002 14 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. 14 P. L. 107- 107, 115 Stat. 1012 (2001). Funds
Appropriated to the
RECA Trust Fund for the Next 10 Fiscal Years
Page 14 GAO- 03- 481 Radiation Exposure Compensation Table 5:
Appropriations to Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund, Fiscal Years
2002 through 2011
Dollars in millions Appropriations (fiscal year) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total
$172 $143 $107 $65 $47 $29 $29 $23 $23 $17 $655
Source: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002.
According to estimates by CBO and RECA program officials, beginning in
fiscal year 2003, higher funding levels will be necessary or millions of
dollars in claims may be delayed. As shown in table 6, CBO estimates that
there will be a shortfall of $101 million in the Trust Fund through fiscal
year 2007, of which about $44 million will occur in fiscal year 2003.
Overall, CBO estimates a net shortage of $78 million through 2011. Table 7
shows the RECA program estimate, which is similar to, but slightly higher
than CBO*s estimate. Overall, RECA estimates a shortage of $107 million
through 2011. Both organizations agree that most of the funding shortfall
will occur over the next 3 years. Table 6: CBO Estimate of the Funding
Shortfall for the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund for Fiscal
Years 2002
through 2011
Dollars in millions CBO estimates by fiscal year Fiscal year 2002
(actual) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total
Estimated requirement $172 $187 $128 $87 $56 $34 $26 $24 $10 $9 $733
Current appropriations $172 $143 $107 $65 $47 $29 $29 $23 $23 $17 $655
Shortfall amount 0 $44 $21 $22 $9 $5 -$ 3 $1 -$ 13 -$ 8 $78
Source: The Congressional Budget Office. Notes: CBO estimates there will
be additional unfunded requirements after fiscal year 2011 and beyond that
are not mentioned here. While the National Defense Authorization Act for
fiscal year 2002 provided funding through fiscal year 2011, Section 3( d)
of the RECA statute, as amended,
provides that the Trust Fund is to terminate in fiscal year 2022.
According to CBO, in the absence of new legislative language, CBO*s
estimates should be considered preliminary. Final CBO estimates would
reflect actual legislative language and CBO*s then current baseline
assumptions.
Figure 3 shows the gap between the amount of funding currently
appropriated to the Trust Fund and CBO*s estimate through fiscal year
2011. Funds Appropriated for
Fiscal Years 2003 through 2011 May Be Inadequate
Page 15 GAO- 03- 481 Radiation Exposure Compensation Figure 3: Funding
Shortfall between the Amount of Funding Currently Appropriated to the
Trust Fund and CBO*s Estimate through Fiscal Year 2011
RECP officials* estimates through fiscal year 2011 are similar to, but
slightly higher than, that of CBO*s. According to program officials,
recent trends indicate that projected claims will total about $762 million
for fiscal years 2002 through 2011. This would exceed the current total of
annual Trust Fund appropriations by a total of about $107 million and
CBO*s overall estimate by $29 million. DOJ*s estimate agrees with that of
CBO, in that most of the funding shortfall, about $72 million, will occur
over the next 3 years. According to RECP officials, a shortfall of funding
available in the Trust Fund in any given year can result in the claims
going unpaid until funds become available the following year. For example,
RECA officials said that in fiscal year 2002, funding was exhausted 3
weeks before the close of the fiscal year, and based on the shortfalls
projected, funding is likely to be exhausted before the close of fiscal
years 2003 through 2005. Table 7 shows RECP*s estimate of unfunded
0 50
100 150
200 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002
Source: GAO analysis of Congressional Budget Office data.
CBO estimated requirements Actual current appropriations
RECA Trust Fund appropriations and CBO estimates (dollars in millions)
Fiscal year
Range of shortfall Range of surplus
Page 16 GAO- 03- 481 Radiation Exposure Compensation requirements for
Radiation Exposure Compensation compared with the current Trust Fund
appropriations as established in law. 15 Table 7: DOJ Estimate of the
Funding Shortfall for the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund,
Fiscal Years 2002
through 2011
Dollars in millions DOJ estimates by fiscal year Fiscal year 2002 2003
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total
Estimated requirement $172 $176 $135 $76 $203 $762
Current appropriation $172 $143 $107 $65 $47 $29 $29 $23 $23 $17 $655
Shortfall amount 0 $33 $28 $11 $35 $107
Source: Department of Justice, Civil Division. RECP officials told us that
in addition to the significant increase in the number of claims submitted,
RECP received an unprecedented number of telephone and written inquiries
for forms and information, a development that has further stretched the
program*s operational resources. According to a budget official, this has
led to upward pressure on the overall costs to administer the program. In
an effort to keep up with the demand, program
officials began adding additional staff in fiscal year 2000. Table 8,
shows that RECP*s full- time equivalent (FTE) staff levels and spending on
program administration have increased in fiscal years 2001 and 2002
commensurate with a resurgence of claims.
15 Table 7 assumes RECA program resources consistent with the President*s
fiscal year 2004 budget request. Spending on Program
Administration Has Increased
Page 17 GAO- 03- 481 Radiation Exposure Compensation Table 8: Average
Full- Time Equivalent Staff Levels and Administrative Costs for Processing
RECA Claims for Fiscal Years 1992 through 2002
Dollars in millions Fiscal year 1992 a 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
2000 2001 2002 Total administrative costs $1.0 $2.1 $2.0 $1.5 $1.5 $1.2
$1.1 $1.1 $1.3 $2.1 $3.0
Government FTE staff 7.6 13.8 15.4 11.8 11.2 11.8 10.9 10.4 11.1 17.6 20.3
Contractor FTE staff 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1.0 10.0 19.0 Contractor portion of
costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <$. 1 $. 5 $1.0 Source: Information provided by the
DOJ*s Office of Program, Budget and Evaluation.
a Because RECP was implemented in April 1992, the government FTE staff
levels and administrative costs for fiscal year 1992 only reflect the
April 1992 to September 30, 1993, time frame.
Since fiscal year 1993, funding for DOJ administration of the program has
been provided in a separate appropriation account for Radiation Exposure
Compensation administrative expenses. The administrative expense
appropriation for the program was $1.996 million each for fiscal years
2001 and 2002.
There is an outstanding issue with respect to the program*s administrative
expenses for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 in that spending may have exceeded
its appropriations for those years. The Antideficiency Act provides that
an officer or employee of the U. S. government may not make or authorize
an expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available in an
appropriation or fund, or enter into a contract or other obligation for
payment of money before an appropriation is made. 16 It is our
understanding, on the basis of information provided to us during
our review, that total administrative expenses were $2.1 million for
fiscal year 2001 and $3 million for fiscal year 2002, while the
appropriation for Radiation Exposure Compensation administrative expenses
was $1.996 million for each of those fiscal years. Regarding fiscal year
2001, it is our understanding that following an increase in the number of
RECA claims filed, around July 2001, the increase in spending arose from a
task order that was issued for $1 million to hire contract staff during
fiscal years 2001 and 2002. These expenses were paid with funds from DOJ*s
Legal Activities, Salaries and Expenses, General Legal Activities account.
The additional staff was reportedly used to assist in processing claims.
16 31 U. S. C. 1341( a)( 1). Administrative Expenses
May Have Exceeded Its Appropriations for Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002
Page 18 GAO- 03- 481 Radiation Exposure Compensation According to DOJ, an
investigation has been initiated to ascertain if possible Antideficiency
Act violations occurred with respect to the
Radiation Exposure Compensation administrative expenses account. Whenever
an agency discovers evidence of a possible over obligation or over
expenditure, it must investigate that evidence. If the investigation shows
that the appropriation, in fact, is over obligated or over expended, the
Antideficiency Act requires reporting the over obligation or over
expenditure to the President and the Congress. OMB guidance on budget
execution, including requirements contained in the Antideficiency Act, is
included in OMB Circular A- 11, Part 4 which requires, among other things,
that agencies include in such reports the primary reason for the
violation, a statement of any circumstances the agency believes to be
extenuating, a
statement of the adequacy of the agency*s funds control system, and a
statement of whether any additional action need be taken to prevent
recurrence of the same type of violation. Given that DOJ has initiated an
investigation, we will monitor DOJ*s investigation of possible
Antideficiency Act violations in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 relating to
the Radiation Exposure Compensation administrative expenses account and
take appropriate actions, if necessary, at the conclusion of DOJ*s
investigation. Fiscal year 2003 appropriations contained several changes
to the program*s administrative expenses appropriation. First, the
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, 17 appropriated funds for
the program*s administrative expenses in DOJ*s Legal Activities, Salaries
and Expenses, General Legal Activities account rather than in a separate
appropriation. Second, the language of the administrative expenses
appropriation was changed from a specified amount to a specified minimum
amount. Specifically, whereas fiscal year 2002 appropriations provided for
*necessary administrative expenses in accordance with the Radiation
Exposure Compensation Act, $1,996,000,* the fiscal year 2003 appropriation
provides, in part, that *not less than $1,996,000 shall be available for
necessary administrative expenses in accordance with the Radiation
Exposure Compensation Act.* In accompanying Conference Report language,
the conferees said that they *expect the Civil Division to
17 P. L. 108- 7, 117 Stat. 11 (2003).
Page 19 GAO- 03- 481 Radiation Exposure Compensation absorb any additional
requirements for processing RECA claims from other resources available to
the Civil Division.* 18 We provided a draft of this report to the Attorney
General for review and
comment. The Justice Department advised us they had no formal comments.
The Civil Division and the Justice Management Division reviewed the report
for accuracy and provided technical comments which have been incorporated
in this report where appropriate.
Funding available to pay claims under the RECA may be inadequate to meet
projected needs. Since the end of fiscal year 2000, the number of
unadjudicated claims has grown 300 percent from 653 to 2,654, and nearly
3,200 new claims are anticipated during fiscal year 2003. Both CBO and DOJ
estimate that money in the Trust Fund will be insufficient to pay all the
claims that are projected to be approved over the 2003- 2011 period. For
fiscal years 2001 and 2002, RECP officials spent more for administrative
expenses than was appropriated. For fiscal year 2003, Congress authorized
DOJ*s Civil Division to absorb any additional funding required for
administrative expenses above the amount appropriated. However, the
availability of additional funds, if needed, for administrative expenses
is contingent on the Civil Division*s ability to absorb any additional
costs.
We recommend that the Attorney General consult with the congressional
committees of jurisdiction to develop a strategy to address the gap
between current funding levels and the amount of funding needed to pay
claims projected to be approved over the 2003- 2011 period.
Copies of this report are being sent to the Attorney General; the
Director, Office Management and Budget; and any other interested parties.
We will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition,
the report will be available at no charge on GAO*s Web site at http://
www. gao. gov.
18 H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 108- 10, at 607 (2003). Agency Comments
Conclusions Recommendation
Page 20 GAO- 03- 481 Radiation Exposure Compensation If you or your staffs
have any questions about this report, please contact William Crocker or me
at (202) 512- 8777 or jonesp@ gao. gov. R. Rochelle Burns, Geoffrey R.
Hamilton, and Leo M. Barbour made key
contributions to this report. Paul L. Jones Director, Justice Issues
Page 21 GAO- 03- 481 Radiation Exposure Compensation List of Committees
The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch Chairman The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
Ranking Minority Member Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate
The Honorable Judd Gregg Chairman The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy Ranking
Minority Member Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions United
States Senate
The Honorable James Sensenbrenner, Jr. Chairman The Honorable John
Conyers, Jr. Ranking Minority Member Committee on the Judiciary House of
Representatives
The Honorable Billy Tauzin Chairman The Honorable John D. Dingell Ranking
Minority Member Committee on Energy and Commerce House of Representatives
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 22 GAO- 03- 481 Radiation Exposure
Compensation To determine the outcomes of the claims adjudication process,
including the number of approved and denied claims, the timeliness of the
claims
adjudication process, and the amount of money awarded, we interviewed
Radiation Exposure Compensation Program (RECP) officials and obtained
RECA- related case information from the Department of Justice*s (DOJ)
Civil Division*s case histories database for fiscal years 1992 through
2002. The Civil Division*s Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation (OPB&
E) provided financial information. We discussed the basis for any major
fluctuations with RECP officials. We did not independently verify the
accuracy of the RECA data extracted from the database.
To determine the cost of administering RECP, we obtained data from OPB& E
by object class for the end of fiscal years 1992 through 2002. The cost
provided includes items such as personnel compensation and benefits,
travel and transportation of persons, and printing and reproduction costs.
To determine full- time equivalent (FTE) staffing levels, the office
provided us with FTE staff levels for RECP at the end of fiscal years 1992
through 2002. To determine the nature of expenditures from the Trust Fund,
we
evaluated annual Trust Fund activity from fiscal years 1992 through 2002
provided by OPB& E. During our initial review of the RECP in 2001, we
verified that payments made were consistent with data contained in DOJ*s
Civil Divisions case histories database. We did not revalidate the
information from the database during this review.
To validate the estimates of future Trust Fund requirements, we met with
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) officials and examined their source
data, methodology, assumptions, calculations, and results. On the basis of
our examination, we found that CBO*s estimates were sound and reasonable.
RECA program officials said that they are confident in the data necessary
to support improved estimates for the next 3 years (fiscal years 2003
through 2005); however, beyond that, their best educated guess is to
extend the slope of the funding curve out another 5 or more years for
RECP. We focused on DOJ*s administration of RECA from its inception in
fiscal year 1992 through the end of fiscal year 2002.
We conducted our review from August 2002 through February 2003, in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix
I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix II: Summary of Key Radiation Exposure Compensation Program
Provisions by Claimant Category Page 23 GAO- 03- 481 Radiation Exposure
Compensation Claimant
category a Time periods Location Amount of compensation Examples of
diseases covered Other
Uranium mine employees Any time from January
1, 1942- December 31, 1971.
Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Wyoming, South Dakota, Washington, Utah,
Idaho, North Dakota, Oregon, and Texas.
$100,000 Lung cancer and nonmalignant respiratory disease.
Victims must have been exposed to at least 40 working level months of
radiation or determine employment in a
mine for 1 full year. b Aboveground miners are included. Additional states
may apply for inclusion as a covered state. Downwinders A period of at
least 2
years from January 21, 1951- October 31, 1958, or for the period between
June 30 and July 31, 1962.
Certain Utah, Nevada, and Arizona counties downwind from the Nevada test
site.
$50,000 Certain types of leukemia, lung cancer, multiple myeloma,
lymphomas, and primary cancer of the thyroid, male or female breast,
esophagus, stomach, pharynx, small intestine, pancreas, bile ducts,
gall bladder, salivary gland, urinary bladder, brain, colon, ovary, or
liver.
For those exposed prior to age 21, and subsequently contract any medically
recognized form of acute or chronic leukemia, other than chronic
lymphocytic leukemia, a period of only 1 year, from January 21, 1951 to
October 31, 1958, is required c Onsite participants Designated atmospheric
nuclear
tests from July 16, 1945- December 31, 1962.
Onsite testing areas include the Nevada, Pacific, Trinity, and the South
Atlantic test
sites. d $75,000 Certain types of leukemia, lung cancer, and
lymphomas, multiple myeloma, and primary cancer of the thyroid, male or
female breast, esophagus, stomach, pharynx, small intestine, pancreas,
bile ducts,
gall bladder, salivary gland, urinary bladder, brain, colon, ovary, or
liver (certain types). The payment to the
victim may be offset by payments received by the victim from the
Department of Veterans Affairs based on the same radiation- related
illness.
Appendix II: Summary of Key Radiation Exposure Compensation Program
Provisions by Claimant Category
Appendix II: Summary of Key Radiation Exposure Compensation Program
Provisions by Claimant Category Page 24 GAO- 03- 481 Radiation Exposure
Compensation Claimant
category a Time periods Location Amount of compensation Examples of
diseases covered Other
Uranium mill employees Any time from January
1, 1942- December 31, 1971.
Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Wyoming, South Dakota, Washington, Utah,
Idaho, North Dakota, Oregon, and Texas.
$100,000 Lung cancer, nonmalignant respiratory diseases, renal cancer, and
other chronic renal disease, including nephritis and kidney tubal tissue
injury.
Victims must have worked for at least 1 year during the relevant time
period.
Ore transporter employees Any time from January 1, 1942- December 31,
1971.
Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Wyoming, South Dakota, Washington, Utah,
Idaho, North Dakota, Oregon, and Texas.
$100,000 Lung cancer, nonmalignant respiratory diseases, renal cancer, and
other chronic renal disease, including nephritis and kidney tubal tissue
injury.
Victims must have worked for at least 1 year during the relevant time
period.
Source: RECA and related regulations. a Also includes victim*s survivors.
b Levels of exposure to radiation are referred to as working level months
and are calculated by multiplying the number of months an individual
worked in a particular uranium mine and the radon level in the mine during
the period of employment. c Prior to the enactment of the RECA Amendments,
a separate claimant category existed for these
victims. The category was called *Childhood Leukemia.* d DOJ lists the
dates and locations of the atmospheric tests conducted by the federal
government in
regulations codified at 28 C. F. R. Part 79. For claimant eligibility,
Justice adds 6 months to the end of the designated time span for each of
the listed test periods.
Appendix II: Summary of Key Radiation Exposure Compensation Program
Provisions by Claimant Category Page 25 GAO- 03- 481 Radiation Exposure
Compensation
Appendix III: RECP*s Claims Adjudication Process
Page 26 GAO- 03- 481 Radiation Exposure Compensation Appendix III: RECP*s
Claims Adjudication Process
Source: Prepared by GAO based on RECP's data.
Appendix III: RECP*s Claims Adjudication Process
Page 27 GAO- 03- 481 Radiation Exposure Compensation a The RECP attorney
may request additional supporting information before making a
recommendation (for approval or denial) to the Assistant Director.
b As of July 10, 2000, based on the 2000 amendments, an applicant can file
a claim for consideration up to three times.
Appendix III: RECP*s Claims Adjudication Process
Page 28 GAO- 03- 481 Radiation Exposure Compensation c Applicants whose
claims have been denied are permitted to refile their claims if (1) they
provide information to correct the deficiency that was the basis for the
last denial under the original RECA
legislation or (2) they believe that they are now eligible as a result of
the 1999 regulatory changes and/ or the 2000 amendments. d The Appeals
Officer may (1) reverse the denial (award compensation to the claimant),
(2) affirm the
denial (deny compensation to the claimant), or (3) remand the case to
RECP. The decision is equivalent to a negative determination for the other
two options.
(440153)
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm
of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO*s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as *Today*s Reports,* on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files.
To have GAO e- mail
this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and select
*Subscribe to daily E- mail alert for newly released products* under the
GAO Reports heading.
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to: U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D. C. 20548 To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000
TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202) 512- 6061
Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202)
512- 7470 Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512-
4800
U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.
C. 20548 GAO*s Mission Obtaining Copies of
GAO Reports and Testimony
Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
Programs Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***