Radiation Exposure Compensation
Funding to Pay Claims May Be Inadequate to Meet Projected Needs Gao ID: GAO-03-481 April 10, 2003On 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.
Since the enactment of the RECA Amendments of 2000, which expanded eligibility for benefits, the RECA program has experienced a significant increase in the number of claims filed. Claims also are taking longer to process, and the number of pending claims has grown sharply. Since we last reported in September 2001, claims have increased from 7,819 to 14,987. Pending claims have increased 300 percent, from 653 to 2,654. About 3,200 new claims are anticipated in fiscal year 2003. In addition, the average time to process claims increased for each category of claimant. Given these circumstances, current funding for the RECA program to pay claims may be inadequate to meet projected needs. In fiscal year 2002, RECA was appropriated funds to cover a 10-year period--fiscal years 2002 through 2011 up to a specified amount per year--totaling $655 million. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) estimate that funding levels appropriated to the Trust Fund are insufficient to meet the projected claims. As a result, claims may be delayed, particularly through 2007. Since 1993, funding for DOJ administration of the program has been provided in a separate appropriation account for Radiation Exposure Compensation administrative expenses. There has been upward pressure on the program's administrative costs in recent years. For fiscal years 2001 and 2002, the RECA program may have exceeded its budget authority for administrative expenses. According to a program budget official, the RECA program spent about $100,000 in fiscal year 2001 and about $1 million for fiscal year 2002 in administrative expenses over the $1.996 million appropriated to the Radiation Exposure Compensation administrative expenses account in those fiscal years.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-03-481, Radiation Exposure Compensation: Funding to Pay Claims May Be Inadequate to Meet Projected Needs
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:
