This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-1037R 
entitled 'Radiation Exposure Compensation Act: Program Status' which 
was released on September 7, 2007. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
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. 

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. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

September 7, 2007: 

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable: 
Arlen Specter: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on the Judiciary: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Lamar S. Smith: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on the Judiciary: 
House of Representatives: 

Subject: Radiation Exposure Compensation Act: Program Status: 

From 1945 through 1962, the United States conducted a series of 
aboveground atomic weapons tests as it built up its Cold War nuclear 
arsenal. Around this same time period, the United States also conducted 
underground uranium-mining operations and related activities, which 
were critical to the production of the atomic weapons. Many people were 
exposed to radiation resulting from the nuclear weapons development and 
testing program, and such exposure is presumed to have produced an 
increased incidence of certain serious diseases, including various 
types of cancer. To make partial restitution to these individuals, or 
their eligible surviving beneficiaries, for their hardships associated 
with the radiation exposure, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act 
(RECA) was enacted on October 15, 1990.[Footnote 1] RECA provided that 
the Attorney General be responsible for processing and adjudicating 
claims under the act. The Department of Justice (DOJ) established the 
Radiation Exposure Compensation Program (RECP), which is administered 
by its Civil Division's Torts Branch. RECP began processing claims in 
April 1992. 

RECA has been amended various times,[Footnote 2] including on July 10, 
2000, when the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2000 
(RECA Amendments of 2000) were enacted.[Footnote 3] The RECA Amendments 
of 2000 broadened the scope of eligibility for benefits to include two 
new occupationally exposed claimant categories (uranium mill workers 
and uranium ore transporters), expanding both the time periods and 
geographic areas covered, and adding compensable diseases, thus 
allowing more individuals to be eligible to qualify. The RECA Trust 
Fund is scheduled to terminate in 2022 pursuant to a sunset provision 
in the legislation. The RECA Amendments of 2000 also mandated that we 
report to Congress on DOJ's administration of RECA not later than 18 
months after the enactment of the amendments and every 18 months 
thereafter.[Footnote 4] We have reported three times previously on 
DOJ's administration of RECA.[Footnote 5] This report updates 
information on DOJ's administration of RECA including: 

* the outcome of the claims adjudication process, including the number 
and status of claims approved, denied, and pending since RECP began in 
April 1992; 

* average processing time for claims; and: 

* RECP's current estimates of the number of future claims to be paid 
from the RECA Trust Fund, associated funding requirements, and RECP 
administrative costs. 

To provide updated information on the claims adjudication process, we 
interviewed RECP officials, obtained responses to our written 
inquiries, and obtained RECA-related case information for fiscal years 
1992 through 2007 (as of June 30) from DOJ's Civil Division's case 
histories database. According to RECP, the information provided was 
obtained from the same data sources that we had previously determined 
to be reliable. We did not revalidate the data from these sources; we 
believe they are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this update. 
We also interviewed officials in the Civil Division's Office of 
Management Information (OMI), the office that maintains the database, 
and RECP, the office that uses information contained in the database, 
to obtain updated information about the database. We specifically 
inquired as to whether any changes had occurred in the design 
specifications and documentation of the database, quality controls and 
procedures used to help ensure data reliability, or quality and 
usability of the data. On the basis of information obtained from OMI 
and RECP officials, we did not identify any data reliability issues. 

For information on average claim-processing times, we received data 
from the case histories database, interviewed RECP program officials, 
reviewed the 2007 and 2008 performance budget submissions to Congress 
for DOJ's Civil Division and RECA Trust Fund, and reviewed the results 
of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) evaluation of RECP using 
OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART).[Footnote 6] We then 
compared RECP's average claim-processing times for fiscal years 2004 
through 2006, and 2007 (as of June 30). 

To provide updated information on RECP's estimates of the number of 
future claims to be paid from the RECA Trust Fund, including associated 
funding requirements, and on RECP administrative costs, we obtained 
these data from the Civil Division's Office of Planning, Budget and 
Evaluation (OPBE). We also obtained an explanation from OPBE of the 
method and mathematical model used to develop these estimates. 
Estimates of future claims were limited to claims paid from the Trust 
Fund because some RECA claims are paid through a program administered 
by the Department of Labor. 

We conducted our review from May 2007 through August 2007 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Results in Brief: 

From April 1992 through June 2007, RECP authorized payments totaling 
$1.2 billion for 18,110 claims. Almost half of the $1.2 billion was 
paid to claimants who lived downwind of the Nevada Test Site during 
nuclear weapons testing. The 18,110 claims represented about two-thirds 
of the 26,550 claims filed since RECP began in April 1992. The 
remaining one-third of the claims were denied, because RECA's 
eligibility criteria were not satisfied or pending. In fiscal year 
2001, the number of claims peaked at 3,822--the highest number of 
claims filed yearly since RECP began in 1992--following the RECA 
Amendments of 2000 that, among other things, broadened the scope of 
eligibility for benefits. Since fiscal year 2001, the number of claims 
filed with RECP has declined. 

RECP's average claim-processing times for each individual category of 
claims have decreased over the 4-year period ending June 30, 2007. In 
fiscal year 2006, RECP's overall average claim-processing time across 
all claimant categories was 339 days, which was 42 days longer than its 
performance goal for that year to reduce average claim-processing time 
across all types of claims to 297 days. 

Starting in fiscal year 2007 through the scheduled termination of the 
RECA Trust Fund in 2022, OPBE estimates that RECP will receive about 
5,560 additional claims and pay an additional $248.3 million from the 
RECA Trust Fund to individuals who lived in certain counties downwind 
of the Nevada Test Site and individuals who were present at test site 
locations and participated in aboveground nuclear weapons 
testing.[Footnote 7] Over this time period, the number of claims OPBE 
estimates that RECP will receive from these individuals and the funding 
needed to pay their approved claims are expected to decline, according 
to OPBE's projections. Funding to administer RECP has been generally 
stable over the last 5 years, averaging about $2.5 million each year. 

Background: 

RECA established a procedure to make partial restitution to eligible 
individuals who contracted serious diseases, such as certain types of 
cancers, presumably resulting from exposure to radiation from 
aboveground nuclear tests or as a result of their employment in the 
uranium industry. These individuals are referred to as (1) downwinders 
(persons who lived in certain counties downwind of the Nevada Test 
Site); (2) on-site participants (persons who were present at test site 
locations and participated in aboveground nuclear weapons testing); and 
(3) above-and underground uranium miners, uranium mill workers, and ore 
transporters (persons who were employed in the uranium industry for at 
least 1 year and, in the case of uranium miners, were exposed to 
certain specified levels of radiation). Figure 1 shows the current 
geographic areas under RECA that represent the scope of eligibility for 
benefits coverage. 

Figure 1: Map of RECA-Covered Areas: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: Department of Justice, Civil Division. 

[End of figure] 

In addition to creating eligibility criteria for compensation, RECA 
created a Trust Fund from which to pay claims. The Attorney General is 
responsible for reviewing claims to determine whether claimants qualify 
for compensation and establishing procedures for paying claims. To 
discharge these responsibilities, the Attorney General has issued 
implementing regulations.[Footnote 8] 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 form along with corroborating 
documentation to RECP, whose claims examiners and legal staff review 
and adjudicate the claims. RECP's review of claims results in either 
approval or denial. If RECP approves a claim, 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 and 
corroboration of banking information from the claimant's financial 
institution, DOJ authorizes the Department of the Treasury or the 
Department of Labor, depending on the type of claim, to make payment to 
the claimant. The Treasury Department makes payments to downwinder and 
on-site participant claimants from the RECA Trust Fund. Payments from 
the Labor Department to uranium miners, uranium millers, and ore 
transporters come from the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 
Compensation Fund.[Footnote 9] If RECP denies a claim, the claimant may 
pursue the following two administrative options before seeking judicial 
review of the denied claim, according to program officials. First, 
denied claimants may refile their claims up to three times in cases 
where they obtain new supporting documentation[Footnote 10] that they 
did not have when their claims were previously filed and that they 
believe might correct the deficiency that resulted in the denial. 
Second, denied claimants may appeal the denial, in writing, within 60 
days of the date of the decision to an appeals officer within the Civil 
Division, who may either affirm or reverse the decision, or remand the 
claim to RECP for further action when appropriate. After exhausting the 
administrative appeal process, denied claimants may seek judicial 
review of the claim in a U.S. district court. For a flowchart of the 
RECA claims adjudication process, including the procedures for refiling 
and administratively appealing denied claims, see appendix I. 

In September 2002, in response to congressional direction,[Footnote 11] 
the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), a division of 
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, asked the National 
Research Council (NRC) to convene a committee to assess recent 
scientific evidence associating radiation exposure with cancers or 
other human health effects and determine whether other groups of people 
or additional geographic areas should be covered under RECA.[Footnote 
12] In April 2005, NRC's committee published its report entitled 
Assessment of the Scientific Information for the Radiation Exposure 
Screening and Education Program, which included among its 
recommendations that Congress establish a new, science-based process to 
determine whether persons from other states and territories should be 
eligible for coverage and compensation under RECA. The new science- 
based process would assess eligibility using a method called 
"probability of causation/assigned share," which is a mathematical 
formula representing the fraction of a group of identical persons in 
whom a radiation-induced cancer would be expected to occur at some 
specified time after receiving a dose of radiation. Eligibility for 
compensation would be based on a scientific determination for each 
claimant of whether his or her illness was caused by exposure to 
radiation. According to NRC's committee report, the scientific evidence 
indicates that in most cases it is unlikely that exposure to radiation 
from fallout was a substantial contributing cause to developing cancer. 

The Conference Report[Footnote 13] that accompanied the fiscal year 
2006 Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act,[Footnote 14] enacted on November 22, 2005, 
contained language directing DOJ to submit a report to the Committees 
on Appropriations, within 90 days of passage of the appropriations act, 
that detailed actions the department and Congress could take to 
implement the recommendations contained in NRC's committee report. In 
April 2006, DOJ submitted a report to the Appropriations Committees in 
which it concluded that on the basis of reviewing the recommendations 
contained in the NRC's committee report, it would not have authority to 
take action to implement the recommendations because doing so would 
entail a complete revision of RECA, which would require legislative 
action. According to RECP, Congress has taken no action to implement 
the recommendations contained in NRC's 2005 report. RECP plans to 
continue monitoring the activities of the National Academies of 
Sciences and similar organizations that seek to revise RECA's 
eligibility criteria. 

RECP Has Approved Over 18,000 Claims, Awarded $1.2 Billion to Over 
24,000 Eligible Claimants, and Experienced a General Decline in the 
Number of Claims Filed Since 2001: 

$1.2 Billion Paid in Approved Claims: 

As of June 30, 2007, RECP had approved 18,110 claims and a total of 
$1.2 billion had been awarded to over 24,000 claimants[Footnote 15] in 
all five claimant categories since RECP began in April 1992. The number 
of approved claims represents 68 percent of the 26,550 claims filed 
during this time period. Downwinder claimants constituted the largest 
claimant category of award recipients. Of the $1.2 billion paid out, 
$561 million, or 46 percent, was paid to downwinder claimants, as shown 
in figure 2. 

Figure 2: Downwinder Claimants Received Almost Half of the $1.2 Billion 
in Payments: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: DOJ's Civil Division. 

[End of figure] 

Among the claims not approved since RECP began in April 1992, 7,539 
were denied because RECA's eligibility criteria were not satisfied, and 
901 were pending adjudication, as of June 30, 2007. According to RECP 
data, in about 40 percent (2,916) of the claims denied, claimants 
continued to pursue a compensation award--1,856 refiled their claims at 
least once; 1,048 pursued an administrative appeal; and of those who 
filed an administrative appeal, 12 sought judicial review.[Footnote 16] 
Table 1 shows the number of claims approved, denied, and pending by 
claimant category. 

Table 1: Claims Approved, Denied, and Pending from April 1992 through 
June 30, 2007, by Claimant Category: 

Claimant category: Downwinder; 
Approved: 11,219; 
Denied: 3,176; 
Pending: 541; 
Total number of claims: 14,936. 

Claimant category: Uranium miner; 
Approved: 4,560; 
Denied: 2,661; 
Pending: 208; 
Total number of claims: 7,429. 

Claimant category: On-site participant; 
Approved: 1,114; 
Denied: 1,393; 
Pending: 112; 
Total number of claims: 2,619. 

Claimant category: Uranium miller; 
Approved: 1,000; 
Denied: 239; 
Pending: 33; 
Total number of claims: 1,272. 

Claimant category: Ore transporter; 
Approved: 217; 
Denied: 70; 
Pending: 7; 
Total number of claims: 294. 

Total; 
Approved: 18,110; 
Denied: 7,539; 
Pending: 901; 
Total number of claims: 26,550. 

Source: DOJ's Civil Division. 

[End of table] 

Number of Claims Filed Peaked In 2001: 

The number of claims peaked at 3,822 in fiscal year 2001 following the 
RECA Amendments of 2000, which, as we noted earlier, broadened the 
scope of eligibility for benefits to include two new occupationally 
exposed claimant categories. Since fiscal year 2001, there has been a 
decline in the number of claims filed with the exception of a slight 
increase in fiscal year 2005. Figure 3 shows the number of new claims 
filed annually. 

Figure 3: Number of RECA Claims Received Each Fiscal Year from 1992 
through 2007: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: DOJ's Civil Division. 

Note: The numbers of RECA claims received from 1992 through 2007 do not 
include appeals of denied claims. 

[A] Claims received through June 30, 2007. 

[End of figure] 

The declining number of claims received since the peak in 2001 has also 
allowed RECP to make significant progress in reducing the backlog of 
claims awaiting adjudication. In 2003 and 2005 we reported that RECP's 
backlog of pending claims was 2,654 as of September 30, 2002 and 1,803 
as of June 19, 2005, respectively. As of June 30, 2007, the backlog of 
pending claims was down to 901, as shown in table 1. 

Average Annual Processing Times for Each Category of Claimant Have 
Decreased since 2004: 

We compared RECP-provided data on average claim-processing time by 
claimant category for claims adjudicated in fiscal years 2004 through 
2006, and 2007 (as of June 30). As shown in figure 4, the average 
processing times decreased across all five claimant categories between 
fiscal years 2004 and 2007. 

Figure 4: Average Processing Times for Claims Adjudicated in Fiscal 
Years 2004 through 2007, by Claimant Category: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: DOJ's Civil Division. 

[End of figure] 

The Civil Division set a long-term performance goal for RECP to reduce 
its overall average claim-processing time across all five claimant 
categories to 200 days by 2011. Starting with fiscal year 2005 as a 
baseline, and for each fiscal year thereafter through 2011, the Civil 
Division also set interim performance goals for processing claims in 
297, 277, 258, 239, 219, and 200 days, respectively. For fiscal year 
2006, RECP overall average claim-processing time was 339 days, 42 days 
more than its performance goal of 297 days.[Footnote 17] These 
processing goals consider that much of the delay in claim-processing 
time is attributed to periods of time when RECP is awaiting the 
submission of additional documentation from claimants in response to 
program requests for additional evidence to establish a meritorious 
claim. According to RECP, there are also situations where the claimants 
request extensions of time to provide such documentation. OMB, in its 
evaluation of RECP's strategic planning efforts in fiscal year 2006, 
noted that although the long-term performance goal to reduce processing 
time to 200 days by 2011 was ambitious, it meaningfully reflected the 
need to reduce the amount of time that this aging population must wait 
for adjudication of its claims. 

While RECP did not meet its overall processing goal of 297 days for 
fiscal year 2006, it did process claims for three out of five claimant 
categories in less than 297 days. For example, in fiscal year 2006, 
average processing time for uranium miners was 289 days, uranium 
millers was 216 days, and ore transporters was 206 days. According to 
RECP, average processing times for on-site participant claims are 
typically longer (454 days during fiscal year 2006). In many cases on- 
site participant claimants requested extensions of time in order to 
consider whether to continue receiving monthly annuity compensation 
from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) or to accept the lump sum 
RECA award. The statute requires RECP to offset all payments made by VA 
for the same injuries that the individual has applied for under RECA. 
In some situations, the on-site participant claimant will reject the 
RECA award in favor of receiving the monthly annuity compensation from 
VA. 

Similarly, processing times increased for on-site participants, and to 
a lesser extent for downwinders, because these claimants requested 
extended periods of time to elect whether to accept an award under RECA 
or under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program 
Act (EEOICPA). According to RECP, a provision of EEOICPA has been 
interpreted to mean that on-site participant and downwinder claimants 
who elect to accept payments under RECA are disqualified from receiving 
benefits under EEOICPA for which they may be eligible. Further, with 
respect to downwinder claims, which took 384 days to process during 
fiscal year 2006, a reduction in staffing was the main reason behind 
the delay in processing these claims, according to RECP. 

Future Downwinder and On-site Participant Claims and Funding Needs Are 
Expected to Decline over the Next 16 Years; RECP Administrative Costs 
Have Remained Generally Stable over the Past 5 Years: 

Using cumulative historical data on claim activity from RECP's first 15 
years, OPBE estimates that starting in fiscal year 2007 through the 
scheduled end of the RECA Trust Fund in 2022, RECP will receive a total 
of about 5,560 additional claims from downwinder and on-site 
participants.[Footnote 18] Figure 5 shows that the number of claims 
RECP is currently estimated to receive annually will steadily decline 
from 1,073 in fiscal year 2007 to 54 in fiscal year 2022. 

Figure 5: OPBE's Projections of the Number of Claims RECP Expects to 
Receive from Downwinder and On-site Participant Claimants during Fiscal 
Years 2007 through 2022: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: DOJ's Civil Division's. 

[End of figure] 

OPBE also estimates that an additional $248.3 million will be required 
to pay approved downwinder and on-site participant claimants from the 
RECA Trust Fund for the remaining life of the program. Figure 6 shows 
projected payments to downwinder and on-site participant claimants 
during fiscal years 2007 through 2022. 

Figure 6: OPBE's Projections of RECP's Payments to Downwinder and On- 
site Participant Claimants during Fiscal Years 2007 through 2022: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: DOJ's Civil Division. 

[End of figure] 

OPBE projects that the funding needed annually to pay downwinder and on-
site participant claimants through the end of the RECA Trust Fund will 
decrease substantially since fewer claims are being filed and DOJ no 
longer is responsible for paying the highest-paid claimants--uranium 
miners, millers, and ore transporters. The Ronald W. Reagan National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 mandated that uranium 
millers, miners, and ore transporters (those who are the highest cost 
claimants entitled to $100,000) be compensated through the Energy 
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program administered by the 
Department of Labor, although RECP would continue to adjudicate their 
claims. 

Funds to administer RECP have remained generally stable over the last 5 
years, averaging about $2.5 million each year. Starting in fiscal year 
2003, appropriations for RECP's administrative expenses were included 
in DOJ's Salaries and Expenses, General Legal Activities account, 
rather than in a separate appropriation account. RECP's administrative 
expenses for fiscal year 2007 (as of June 30) were $2.2 million, and 
expenses for fiscal years 2003 through 2006 ranged from $2.2 million to 
$2.9 million, as shown in table 2. Table 2 also shows the number of 
full-time equivalent (FTE) government positions and contract employees 
each year during fiscal years 2003 through 2007. 

Table 2: Full-time Equivalent Staff Levels and Administrative Costs for 
Processing RECA Claims during Fiscal Years 2003 through 2007: 

Total administrative costs (dollars in millions); 
Fiscal year: 2003: $2.2; 
Fiscal year: 2004: $2.6; 
Fiscal year: 2005: $2.9; 
Fiscal year: 2006: $2.6. 
Fiscal year: 2007: $2.7. 

Government FTE staff; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 17; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 16; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 16; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 14;
Fiscal year: 2007: 14; 

Contractor FTE staff;
Fiscal year: 2003: 3; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 8; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 7; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 4; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 3; 

Source: DOJ's Civil Division. 

[A] RECA administrative cost data for fiscal year 2007 are as of June 
30, 2007. 

[End of table] 

Agency Comments: 

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

DOJ advised us that it had no formal agency comments. Department of 
Justice staff provided technical comments, which have been incorporated 
into the report as appropriate. 

Copies of this report are being sent to the Acting Attorney General; 
the Director, Office of Management and Budget; selected congressional 
committees; and any other interested parties. We will also make copies 
available to others upon request. Contact points for our Offices of 
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this report. In addition, the report will be available at no 
charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at 202-512-9610 or at caldwells@gao.gov. William W. Crocker, 
Mary Y. Martin, and Geoffrey R. Hamilton made key contributions to this 
report. 

Signed by: 

Stephen L. Caldwell: 
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: RECP's Claims Adjudication Process: 

Figure: RECP's Claims Adjudication Process: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: Prepared by GAO based on RECP's data. 

[A] The RECP attorney may request additional supporting information 
before making a recommendation (for approval or denial) to the 
Assistant Director. 

[B] Claimants have the option of refiling their denied claims or 
appealing the denial decision to the appeals officer. 

[C] RECP authorizes the Department of the Treasury to pay downwinder 
and on-site participant claims and the Department of Labor to pay 
claims of uranium miners, uranium millers, and ore transporters. 

[D] Claimants who 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. As of July 10, 2000, on 
the basis of the RECA Amendments of 2000, a claimant can refile a claim 
for consideration up to three times. 

[E] A claimant may appeal the denial, in writing, within 60 days of the 
Assistant Director's decision. 

[F] 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 for further consideration. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section]

Footnotes: 

[1] Pub. L. No. 101-426, 104 Stat. 920 (1990). RECA recognizes that the 
amount of money paid does not completely compensate for the burdens 
placed upon such individuals. 

[2] Amendments included the November 1990 amendments (Pub. L. No.101- 
510, 104 Stat.1835, 1837) that, among other things, expanded 
eligibility to include on-site participants; the October 1992 
amendments (Pub. L. No. 102-486, 106 Stat. 3131) that provided for the 
judicial review of denied claims; and the November 2002 amendments 
(Pub. L. No. 107-273, 116 Stat.1758) that, among other things, 
eliminated the requirement for uranium workers diagnosed with lung 
cancer to submit medical evidence of a non-malignant respiratory 
disease because this requirement had the unintended effect of excluding 
most lung cancer claimants from establishing eligibility for 
compensation. 

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

[4] Section 11007 of the 21st Century Department of Justice 
Appropriations Authorization Act (Pub. L. No. 107-273, 116 Stat. 1758, 
1818 (2002)) made a technical amendment to the GAO reporting 
requirement provisions by striking such reporting provision in the RECA 
Amendments of 2000 and enacting the same reporting requirement 
provision at a different location within RECA. 

[5] GAO, Radiation Exposure Compensation: Analysis of Justice's Program 
Administration, GAO-01-1043 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 17, 2001); GAO, 
Radiation Exposure Compensation: Funding to Pay Claims May Be 
Inadequate to Meet Projected Needs, GAO-03-481 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 
14, 2003); and GAO, Radiation Exposure Compensation Act: Program 
Status, GAO-05-1002R (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 2005). 

[6] Using this tool, OMB evaluated RECP in fiscal year 2006 in the 
areas of program purpose and design, strategic planning, program 
management, and program results and accountability. OMB rated RECP as 
performing adequately. 

[7] For purposes of this report, the other three claimant categories-- 
uranium miners, uranium millers, and ore transporters--are excluded 
from OPBE's estimates of future claims and funding requirements because 
the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2005 mandated that approved claims in these claimant categories be 
compensated through the Department of Labor's Energy Employees 
Occupational Illness Compensation Fund, although RECP would continue to 
adjudicate their claims [Pub. L. No. 108-375,118 Stat.1811, 2187-88 
(2004)]. 

[8] 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). 

[9] The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program 
compensates certain workers of the Department of Energy (and certain 
contractors and subcontractors) who work or worked at nuclear 
facilities or nuclear weapons testing sites or their survivors, as well 
as RECA-covered uranium miners, millers, and ore transporters injured 
by exposure to ultrahazardous materials, or their survivors. This 
program's authorizing statute, the Energy Employees Occupational 
Illness Compensation Program Act, enacted on October 30, 2000, made a 
permanent appropriation of such amounts as may be needed to pay 
benefits. Pub. L. No. 106-398, 114 Stat. 1654 (2000). 

[10] As of July 10, 2000, on the basis of the RECA Amendments of 2000, 
a claimant can resubmit a claim for consideration up to three times. 

[11] H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 107-593, at 158 (2002). 

[12] HRSA provides national leadership, program resources, and services 
needed to improve access to quality health care for uninsured, 
underserved, and special needs populations. More detailed information 
on HRSA can be obtained through the HRSA Web site at [hyperlink, 
http://www.hrsa.gov]. NRC is part of the National Academies, which also 
comprise the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of 
Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. They are private, nonprofit 
institutions that provide science, technology and health policy advice 
under a congressional charter. See [hyperlink, 
http://www.nationalacademies.org]. 

[13] H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 109-272 (2005). 

[14] Pub. L. No. 109-108, 119 Stat. 2290 (2005). 

[15] According to RECP, many claims include multiple eligible 
beneficiaries such as the children or grandchildren of a deceased 
uranium worker, on-site participant, or downwinder claimant. Because of 
that, the number of award recipients is greater than the number of 
claims awarded. The lump sum payment award is divided equally among the 
recipients. 

[16] Of the 12 claimants who sought judicial review, 2 of the claimants 
withdrew their claims after filing them with district court. One 
claimant voluntarily withdrew the claim immediately after filing it in 
district court and according to a RECP official, the claimant decided 
to refile the claim with RECP after obtaining new evidence to correct 
the deficiency that resulted in RECP's denial of the claim. The other 
claimant withdrew the claim after the district court dismissed it for 
failure to follow proper filing procedures. 

[17] According to RECP, the methodology it uses to measure overall 
average claim-processing time is a weighted average calculated on the 
basis of the number of claims adjudicated in each claimant category. 
Using that methodology, the overall average claim-processing time in 
days for fiscal year 2004 was 379; fiscal year 2005 was 316; fiscal 
year 2006 was 339; and fiscal year 2007 (as of 6/30/07) was 312. 

[18] To develop the estimates of future claims, OPBE used the Civil 
Division's mathematical model, which makes projections on the basis of 
cumulative historical claim activity data from RECP's first 15 years. 
According to OPBE, KPMG, DOJ's independent auditor, has reviewed the 
Civil Division's model and methods for projecting claim receipts and 
awards for the life of RECP since fiscal year 2005 and recommended that 
outlier years (fiscal years 1992, 2000, and 2001) be excluded from all 
estimate calculations to minimize the impact of workload aberrations 
caused by RECP's initial start-up and the RECA Amendments of 2000. OPBE 
estimated the number of claims filed annually until the RECA Trust Fund 
ends in 2022 by finding the average number of claims filed from 1992 
through 2006 (exclusive of the outlier years). 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "Subscribe to Updates." 

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. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Susan Becker, Acting Manager, Beckers@gao.gov (202) 512-4800: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: