This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-481 entitled 'Radiation Exposure Compensation: Funding to Pay Claims May Be Inadequate to Meet Projected Needs' which was released on April 10, 2003. This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a longer term project to improve GAO products’ accessibility. Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 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: GAO Highlights: Highlights of GAO-03-481, a report to Congressional Committees Why GAO Did This Study: 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. What GAO Found: 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. What GAO Recommends: 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. [End of section] Contents: Letter: Results in Brief: Background: Since Fiscal Year 2000, RECA Claims Increased Significantly, Processing Time Has Slowed, and the Number of Pending Claims Has Grown: Funding to Pay Claims May Be Inadequate to Meet Projected Needs: Spending on Program Administration Has Increased: Agency Comments: Conclusions: Recommendation: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: Appendix II: Summary of Key Radiation Exposure Compensation Program Provisions by Claimant Category: Appendix III: RECP’s Claims Adjudication Process: Tables: Table 1: Number of RECA Claims Approved, Denied, and Pending through Fiscal Year 2002: Table 2: Processing Time in Months for Approved and Denied Claims for Fiscal Years 1992 through 2002: Table 3: Average Number of Days to Process a Claim for Fiscal Years 1992 through 2002: Table 4: Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund Activity, Fiscal Years 1992 through 2002: Table 5: Appropriations to Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2011: Table 6: CBO Estimate of the Funding Shortfall for the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund for Fiscal Years 2002 through 2011: Table 7: DOJ Estimate of the Funding Shortfall for the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2011: Table 8: Average Full-Time Equivalent Staff Levels and Administrative Costs for Processing RECA Claims for Fiscal Years 1992 through 2002: Figures: Figure 1: Map of RECA-Covered Areas: Figure 2: Number of RECA Claims Filed from Fiscal Years 1992 through 2002 and Fiscal Year 2003 Estimate: Figure 3: Funding Shortfall between the Amount of Funding Currently Appropriated to the Trust Fund and CBO’s Estimate through Fiscal Year 2011: 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. United States General Accounting Office: Washington, DC 20548: 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,[Footnote 1] the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) was enacted.[Footnote 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,[Footnote 3] including on July 10, 2000, when the RECA Amendments of 2000 were enacted.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 5] 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. Results in Brief: 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 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,[Footnote 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. Background: 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.[Footnote 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 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. Figure 1: Map of RECA-Covered Areas: [See PDF for image] [End of figure] 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;[Footnote 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[Footnote 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 weapons. For example, the Radiation-Exposed Veterans Compensation Act of 1988[Footnote 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[Footnote 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. Since Fiscal Year 2000, RECA Claims Increased Significantly, Processing Time Has Slowed, and the Number of Pending Claims Has Grown: 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. RECA Claims Increased Significantly: 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. Figure 2: Number of RECA Claims Filed from Fiscal Years 1992 through 2002 and Fiscal Year 2003 Estimate: [See PDF for image] [End of figure] Numbers of Claims Approved, Denied, and Pending: 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. Table 1: Number of RECA Claims Approved, Denied, and Pending through Fiscal Year 2002: Approved; Category of claim: Uranium mine: employees: 2,311; Category of claim: Downwinders: 4,945; Category of claim: Onsite participants: 465; Category of claim: Uranium mill employees: 156; Category of claim: Ore transporter employees: 38; Total: 7,915. Denied; Category of claim: Uranium mine: employees: 1,786; Category of claim: Downwinders: 1,688; Category of claim: Onsite participants: 901; Category of claim: Uranium mill employees: 34; Category of claim: Ore transporter employees: 9; Total: 4,418. Pending; Category of claim: Uranium mine: employees: 553; Category of claim: Downwinders: 1,677; Category of claim: Onsite participants: 247; Category of claim: Uranium mill employees: 138; Category of claim: Ore transporter employees: 39; Total: 2,654. Total; Category of claim: Uranium mine: employees: 4,650; Category of claim: Downwinders: 8,310; Category of claim: Onsite participants: 1,613; Category of claim: Uranium mill employees: 328; Category of claim: Ore transporter employees: 86; Total: 14,987. Source: DOJ’s Civil Division’s case histories database. Note: Approved, denied, and pending data at the time of our review. [End of table]: Through the end of fiscal year 2002, RECP approved about $530.5 million to claimants.[Footnote 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). Claims Taking Longer to Process: 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.[Footnote 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. Table 2: Processing Time in Months for Approved and Denied Claims for Fiscal Years 1992 through 2002: Processing time in months[A]: 12 months or less; Applicant type: Uranium mine employees: 2,808; Applicant type: Downwinders: 5,773; Applicant type: Onsite: participants: 1,039; Applicant type: Uranium mill: employees: 105; Applicant type: Ore transporter employees: 25; Applicant type: Total: 9,750; Percent of total: 79.2. Processing time in months[A]: 13 months; Applicant type: Uranium mine employees: 302; Applicant type: Downwinders: 260; Applicant type: Onsite: participants: 78; Applicant type: Uranium mill: employees: 18; Applicant type: Ore transporter employees: 4; Applicant type: Total: 662; Percent of total: 5.4. Processing time in months[A]: 14 months; Applicant type: Uranium mine employees: 196; Applicant type: Downwinders: 158; Applicant type: Onsite: participants: 45; Applicant type: Uranium mill: employees: 14; Applicant type: Ore transporter employees: 6; Applicant type: Total: 419; Percent of total: 3.4. Processing time in months[A]: 15 months; Applicant type: Uranium mine employees: 146; Applicant type: Downwinders: 135; Applicant type: Onsite: participants: 46; Applicant type: Uranium mill: employees: 10; Applicant type: Ore transporter employees: 3; Applicant type: Total: 340; Percent of total: 2.8. Processing time in months[A]: 16 months; Applicant type: Uranium mine employees: 113; Applicant type: Downwinders: 88; Applicant type: Onsite: participants: 26; Applicant type: Uranium mill: employees: 10; Applicant type: Ore transporter employees: 3; Applicant type: Total: 240; Percent of total: 1.9. Processing time in months[A]: 17 months; Applicant type: Uranium mine employees: 59; Applicant type: Downwinders: 63; Applicant type: Onsite: participants: 20; Applicant type: Uranium mill: employees: 12; Applicant type: Ore transporter employees: 1; Applicant type: Total: 155; Percent of total: 1.3. Processing time in months[A]: 18 to 24 months; Applicant type: Uranium mine employees: 318; Applicant type: Downwinders: 126; Applicant type: Onsite: participants: 64; Applicant type: Uranium mill: employees: 19; Applicant type: Ore transporter employees: 5; Applicant type: Total: 532; Percent of total: 4.3. Processing time in months[A]: More than 24 months; Applicant type: Uranium mine employees: 148; Applicant type: Downwinders: 19; Applicant type: Onsite: participants: 42; Applicant type: Uranium mill: employees: 2; Applicant type: Ore transporter employees: 0; Applicant type: Total: 211; Percent of total: 1.7. Processing time in months[A]: Subtotal over 12 months; Applicant type: Uranium mine employees: [Empty]; Applicant type: Downwinders: [Empty]; Applicant type: Onsite: participants: [Empty]; Applicant type: Uranium mill: employees: [Empty]; Applicant type: Ore transporter employees: [Empty]; Applicant type: Total: 2,559; Percent of total: [Empty]. Processing time in months[A]: Total; Applicant type: Uranium mine employees: 4,090; Applicant type: Downwinders: 6,622; Applicant type: Onsite: participants: 1,360; Applicant type: Uranium mill: employees: 190; Applicant type: Ore transporter employees: 47; Applicant type: Total: 12,309; Percent of total: 100. Source: DOJ’s Civil Division’s case histories database. [A] Appealed and pending cases have been excluded. [End of table] 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. Table 3: Average Number of Days to Process a Claim for Fiscal Years 1992 through 2002: Applicant type: Onsite participants: End of fiscal year 2000: [Empty]; Applicant type: Uranium mill employee: End of fiscal year 2000: [Empty]; Applicant type: Ore transporter employee: End of fiscal year 2000: [Empty]. Average days to process claims: End of fiscal year 2000; Applicant type: Uranium mine employees: Average days to process claims: 269; Applicant type: Downwinders: Average days to process claims: 190; Applicant type: Onsite participants: 245; Applicant type: Uranium mill employee: a; Applicant type: Ore transporter employee: a. Average days to process claims: End of fiscal year 2002; Applicant type: Uranium mine employees: Average days to process claims: 327; Applicant type: Downwinders: Average days to process claims: 244; Applicant type: Onsite participants: 263; Applicant type: Uranium mill employee: 459; Applicant type: Ore transporter employee: 392. Average days to process claims: Increase in days; Applicant type: Uranium mine employees: Average days to process claims: 58; Applicant type: Downwinders: Average days to process claims: 54; Applicant type: Onsite participants: 18; Applicant type: Uranium mill employee: a; Applicant type: Ore transporter employee: a. Source: GAO’s analysis of information from DOJ’s Civil Division’s Case Histories Database. [A] Data not available. [End of table]: 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. Number of Pending Claims Is Growing: 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. Funding to Pay Claims May Be Inadequate to Meet Projected Needs: 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. Table 4: Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund Activity, Fiscal Years 1992 through 2002: Dollars in thousands: Fiscal year: 1992; Carry forward from prior year: 0; Appropriated funds: $30,000; Interest earned from government securities: 0; Total available: $30,000; Payments: $22,454; Balance at end of fiscal year: $7,546. Fiscal year: 1993; Carry forward from prior year: $7,546; Appropriated funds: $170,750; Interest earned from government securities: $2,493; Total available: $180,789; Payments: $57,390; Balance at end of fiscal year: $123,399. Fiscal year: 1994; Carry forward from prior year: $123,399; Appropriated funds: 0; Interest earned from government securities: $2,300; Total available: $125,699; Payments: $60,651; Balance at end of fiscal year: $65,048. Fiscal year: 1995; Carry forward from prior year: $65,048; Appropriated funds: 0; Interest earned from government securities: $1,365; Total available: $66,413; Payments: $31,242; Balance at end of fiscal year: $35,171. Fiscal year: 1996; Carry forward from prior year: $35,171; Appropriated funds: 0; Interest earned from government securities: $464; Total available: $35,635; Payments: $21,133; Balance at end of fiscal year: $14,502. Fiscal year: 1997; Carry forward from prior year: $14,502; Appropriated funds: $30,000; Interest earned from government securities: $332; Total available: $44,834; Payments: $15,882; Balance at end of fiscal year: $28,952. Fiscal year: 1998; Carry forward from prior year: $28,952; Appropriated funds: $4,381; Interest earned from government securities: 0; Total available: $33,333; Payments: $12,339; Balance at end of fiscal year: $20,994. Fiscal year: 1999; Carry forward from prior year: $20,994; Appropriated funds: 0; Interest earned from government securities: $259; Total available: $21,253; Payments: $12,822; Balance at end of fiscal year: $8,431. Fiscal year: 2000; Carry forward from prior year: $8,431; Appropriated funds: $3,200; Interest earned from government securities: 0; Total available: $11,631; Payments: $11,200; Balance at end of fiscal year: $431. Fiscal year: 2001; Carry forward from prior year: $431; Appropriated funds: $107,483[A]; Interest earned from government securities: 0; Total available: $107,914; Payments: $107,914; Balance at end of fiscal year: 0. Fiscal year: 2002; Carry forward from prior year: 0; Appropriated funds: $172,000; Interest earned from government securities: 0; Total available: $172,000; Payments: $171,551; Balance at end of fiscal year: $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. [End of table] Funds Appropriated to the RECA Trust Fund for the Next 10 Fiscal Years: The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002[Footnote 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. Table 5: Appropriations to Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2011: Dollars in millions. Appropriations (fiscal year): 2002: $172; Appropriations (fiscal year): 2003: $143; Appropriations (fiscal year): 2004: $107; Appropriations (fiscal year): 2005: $65; Appropriations (fiscal year): 2006: $47; Appropriations (fiscal year): 2007: $29; Appropriations (fiscal year): 2008: $29; Appropriations (fiscal year): 2009: $23; Appropriations (fiscal year): 2010: $23; Appropriations (fiscal year): 2011: $17; Total: $655. Source: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002. [End of table]: Funds Appropriated for Fiscal Years 2003 through 2011 May Be Inadequate: 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. Estimated requirement; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2002 (actual): $172; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2003: $187; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2004: $128; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2005: $87; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2006: $56; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2007: $34; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2008: $26; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2009: $24; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2010: $10; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2011: $9; $733. Current appropriations; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2002 (actual): $172; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2003: $143; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2004: $107; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2005: $65; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2006: $47; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2007: $29; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2008: $29; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2009: $23; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2010: $23; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2011: $17; $655. Shortfall amount; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2002 (actual): 0; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2003: $44; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2004: $21; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2005: $22; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2006: $9; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2007: $5; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2008: -$3; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2009: $1; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2010: -$13; CBO estimates by fiscal year: 2011: -$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. [End of table]: Figure 3 shows the gap between the amount of funding currently appropriated to the Trust Fund and CBO’s estimate through fiscal year 2011. Figure 3: Funding Shortfall between the Amount of Funding Currently Appropriated to the Trust Fund and CBO’s Estimate through Fiscal Year 2011: [See PDF for image] [End of figure] 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.[Footnote 15] Table 7: DOJ Estimate of the Funding Shortfall for the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2011: Dollars in millions. Estimated requirement; DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 2002: $172; DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 2003: $176; DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 2004: $135; DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 2005: $76; DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 2006: $203; Total: $762. Current appropriation; DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 2002: $172; DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 2003: $143; DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 2004: $107; DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 2005: $65; DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 2006: $47; DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 2007: $203: $29; DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 2008: $203: $29; DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 2009: $203: $23; DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 2010: $203: $23; DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 2011: $203: $17; Total: $655. Shortfall amount; DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 2002: 0; DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 2003: $33; DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 2004: $28; DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 2005: $11; DOJ estimates by fiscal year: 2006: $35; Total: $107. Source: Department of Justice, Civil Division. [End of table] Spending on Program Administration Has Increased: 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. Table 8: Average Full-Time Equivalent Staff Levels and Administrative Costs for Processing RECA Claims for Fiscal Years 1992 through 2002: Dollars in millions. Total administrative costs; Fiscal year: 1992: $1.0; Fiscal year: 1993: $2.1; Fiscal year: 1994: $2.0; Fiscal year: 1995: $1.5; Fiscal year: 1996: $1.5; Fiscal year: 1997: $1.2; Fiscal year: 1998: $1.1; Fiscal year: 1999: $1.1; Fiscal year: 2000: $1.3; Fiscal year: 2001: $2.1; Fiscal year: 2002: $3.0. Government FTE staff; Fiscal year: 1992: 7.6; Fiscal year: 1993: 13.8; Fiscal year: 1994: 15.4; Fiscal year: 1995: 11.8; Fiscal year: 1996: 11.2; Fiscal year: 1997: 11.8; Fiscal year: 1998: 10.9; Fiscal year: 1999: 10.4; Fiscal year: 2000: 11.1; Fiscal year: 2001: 17.6; Fiscal year: 2002: 20.3. Contractor FTE staff; Fiscal year: 1992: 0; Fiscal year: 1993: 0; Fiscal year: 1994: 0; Fiscal year: 1995: 0; Fiscal year: 1996: 0; Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998: 0; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: <1.0; Fiscal year: 2001: 10.0; Fiscal year: 2002: 19.0. Contractor portion of costs; Fiscal year: 1992: 0; Fiscal year: 1993: 0; Fiscal year: 1994: 0; Fiscal year: 1995: 0; Fiscal year: 1996: 0; Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998: 0; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: <$.1; Fiscal year: 2001: $.5; Fiscal year: 2002: $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. [End of table] Administrative Expenses May Have Exceeded Its Appropriations for Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002: 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. 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,[Footnote 16] 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.”[Footnote 17] Agency Comments: 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. Conclusions: 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. Recommendation: 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. Paul L. Jones Director, Justice Issues: Signed by Paul L. Jones 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: [End of section] Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 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. [End of section] Appendix II: Summary of Key Radiation Exposure Compensation Program Provisions by Claimant Category: Claimant category[A]: Uranium mine employees; 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.; Amount of compensation: $100,000; Examples of diseases covered: Lung cancer and nonmalignant respiratory disease.; Other: 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.. Claimant category[A]: Downwinders; Time periods: 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.; Location: Certain Utah, Nevada, and Arizona counties downwind from the Nevada test site.; Amount of compensation: $50,000; Examples of diseases covered: 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.; Other: 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]. Claimant category[A]: Onsite participants; Time periods: Designated atmospheric nuclear tests from July 16, 1945-December 31, 1962.; Location: Onsite testing areas include the Nevada, Pacific, Trinity, and the South Atlantic test sites.[D]; Amount of compensation: $75,000; Examples of diseases covered: 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).; Other: 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.. Claimant category[A]: Uranium mill employees; 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.; Amount of compensation: $100,000; Examples of diseases covered: Lung cancer, nonmalignant respiratory diseases, renal cancer, and other chronic renal disease, including nephritis and kidney tubal tissue injury.; Other: Victims must have worked for at least 1 year during the relevant time period.. Claimant category[A]: Ore transporter employees; 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.; Amount of compensation: $100,000; Examples of diseases covered: Lung cancer, nonmalignant respiratory diseases, renal cancer, and other chronic renal disease, including nephritis and kidney tubal tissue injury.; Other: 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. [End of table] [End of section] Appendix III: RECP’s Claims Adjudication Process: [See PDF for image] [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. [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. [End of figure] [End of section] FOOTNOTES [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). [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). [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). [10] P.L. 100-321, 102 Stat. 485 (1988). [11] P.L. 106-398, 114 Stat. 1654 (2000). [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. [14] P.L. 107-107, 115 Stat. 1012 (2001). [15] Table 7 assumes RECA program resources consistent with the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget request. [16] P.L. 108-7, 117 Stat. 11 (2003). [17] H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-10, at 607 (2003). GAO’s Mission: The General Accounting Office, the 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. Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 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 full-text 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. Order by Mail or Phone: 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: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: Contact: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: Public Affairs: 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: