Radiation Exposure Compensation Act: Program Status (07-SEP-07,
GAO-07-1037R).
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. 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, including on July 10, 2000, when the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Act Amendments of 2000 (RECA Amendments of 2000)
were enacted. 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. We have reported three times
previously on DOJ's administration of RECA. 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.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-07-1037R
ACCNO: A75847
TITLE: Radiation Exposure Compensation Act: Program Status
DATE: 09/07/2007
SUBJECT: Claims processing
Claims processing costs
Claims settlement
Health hazards
Judicial remedies
Nuclear weapons testing
Program evaluation
Uranium
Program goals or objectives
Program implementation
Radiation Exposure Compensation Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-1037R
* [1]Results in Brief
* [2]Background
* [3]RECP Has Approved Over 18,000 Claims, Awarded $1.2 Billion t
* [4]Future Downwinder and On-site Participant Claims and Funding
* [5]Agency Comments
* [6]PDF6-Ordering Information.pdf
* [7]Order by Mail or Phone
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.^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.
^1Pub. 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.
RECA has been amended various times,^2 including on July 10, 2000, when
the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2000 (RECA
Amendments of 2000) were enacted.^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.^4 We have reported three times
previously on DOJ's administration of RECA.^5 This report updates
information on DOJ's administration of RECA including
o the outcome of the claims adjudication process, including the
number and status of claims approved, denied, and pending since
RECP began in April 1992;
o average processing time for claims; and
o 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.
^2Amendments 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.
^3Pub. L. No. 106-245, 114 Stat. 501 (2000).
^4Section 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.
^5GAO, Radiation Exposure Compensation: Analysis of Justice's Program
Administration, [8]GAO-01-1043 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 17, 2001); GAO,
Radiation Exposure Compensation: Funding to Pay Claims May Be Inadequate
to Meet Projected Needs, [9]GAO-03-481 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 14, 2003);
and GAO, Radiation Exposure Compensation Act: Program Status,
[10]GAO-05-1002R (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 2005).
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).^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.
^6Using 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.
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.^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.
^7For 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)].
Figure 1: Map of RECA-Covered Areas
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.^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.^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^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.
^8DOJ implementing regulations for the RECA program are found at Part 79
of Title 28 Code of Federal Regulations (28 C.F.R. Part 79).
In September 2002, in response to congressional direction,^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.^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.
^9The 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).
^10As 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.
^11H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 107-593, at 158 (2002).
^12HRSA 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 [11]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
[12]www.nationalacademies.org .
The Conference Report^13 that accompanied the fiscal year 2006 Science,
State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,^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^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.
^13H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 109-272 (2005).
^14Pub. L. No. 109-108, 119 Stat. 2290 (2005).
^15According 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.
Figure 2: Downwinder Claimants Received Almost Half of the $1.2 Billion in
Payments
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.^16 Table 1 shows the
number of claims approved, denied, and pending by claimant category.
^16Of 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.
Table 1: Claims Approved, Denied, and Pending from April 1992 through June
30, 2007, by Claimant Category
Claimant category Approved Denied Pending Total numberof claims
Downwinder 11,219 3,176 541 14,936
Uranium miner 4,560 2,661 208 7,429
On-site participant 1,114 1,393 112 2,619
Uranium miller 1,000 239 33 1,272
Ore transporter 217 70 7 294
Total 18,110 7,539 901 26,550
Source: DOJ's Civil Division.
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
Note: The numbers of RECA claims received from 1992 through 2007 do not
include appeals of denied claims.
^aClaims received through June 30, 2007.
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
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.^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.
^17According 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.
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.^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
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.
^18To 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).
Figure 6: OPBE's Projections of RECP's Payments to Downwinder and On-site
Participant Claimants during Fiscal Years 2007 through 2022
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
Fiscal year
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007^a
Total administrative costs (dollars in $2.2 $2.6 $2.9 $2.6 $2.2
millions)
Government FTE staff 17 16 16 14 14
Contractor FTE staff 3 8 7 4 3
Source: DOJ's Civil Division.
^aRECA administrative cost data for fiscal year 2007 are as of June 30,
2007.
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 [13]http://www.gao.gov .
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact
me at 202-512-9610 or at [14][email protected] . William W. Crocker, Mary
Y. Martin, and Geoffrey R. Hamilton made key contributions to this report.
Stephen L. Caldwell
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues
Appendix I: RECP's Claims Adjudication Process
^aThe RECP attorney may request additional supporting information before
making a recommendation (for approval or denial) to the Assistant
Director.
^bClaimants have the option of refiling their denied claims or appealing
the denial decision to the appeals officer.
^cRECP 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.
^dClaimants 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.
^eA claimant may appeal the denial, in writing, within 60 days of the
Assistant Director's decision.
^fThe 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.
(440608)
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 ( [15]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
[16]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: [17]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [18][email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [19][email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Susan Becker, Acting Manager, [20][email protected] (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
D.C. 20548
References
Visible links
8. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-1043
9. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-481
10. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-1002R
11. http://www.hrsa.gov/
12. http://www.nationalacademies.org/
13. http://www.gao.gov/
14. mailto:[email protected]
15. http://www.gao.gov/
16. http://www.gao.gov/
17. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
18. mailto:[email protected]
19. mailto:[email protected]
20. mailto:[email protected]
*** End of document. ***