NIOSH Program Area - Radiation Dose Reconstruction - Case Information 3/27/15, 1:25 PM

3 Draft dose reconstruction report completed. Administratively closed due to claimant refusal to sign
OCAS-1 form.

4 Of the total active claims at NIOSH, 1 out of 3 (33%), represent dose reconstructions returned to
NIOSH by DOL for rework due to additional employment, an additional cancer needs to be dose

reconstructed, or the affect of a technical change based on a Program Evaluation Report is being
examined.

Page last reviewed: September 26, 2014
Page last updated: September 26, 2014

Content source: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Division of Compensation Analysis and Support

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1600 Clifton Road Atlanta, GA 30329-4027, ot ns
usa woe USA.gov,
800-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636) TTY: (888) 232-6348 - Contact CDC-INFO SA-GOV

hitp://www2a.cde.gov/ocas/jecu.asp Page 2 of 2


U.S. Department of Labor - Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) 3/27/15, 1:12 PM

United States Department of Labor

Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP)

EEOICP Program Statistics

Last year, the DEEOIC deployed a new case management system for use by our claims

staff. The new system is constructed differently than the previous system, and we Highlights

determined that it was appropriate to re-examine our statistics and how they are a Z

displayed on the web site. For the past several months, we have been working on = View Part B Statistics

reconstructing the site and the statistics. Therefore, viewers may notice some

differences in the web statistics. = View Part B NIOSH and SEC Statistics

The separate category for the non-covered applications has been removed and those
counts are now included in the Final Decision counts. Although the number of posted denials appears to increase, there is not an increase in total
numbers. Denials are being shown under a single category instead of being split into two separate counts.

In the past, on our state-by-state pages, medical bill payments were attributed to each state in which any claimant (including multiple survivors) on
the case resided, resulting in an overstatement of the amount of medical bill payments in a given state. Medical bill payments are now being
attributed to the state in which the employee resides. Although the National page total was not affected by this change, the current state medical
totals will show a reduction from previously-reported amounts.

A list of definitions for the terms used on the EEOICP Program Statistics web pages is available here.

DOW CHEMICAL CORPORATION (MADISON SITE) - ILLINOIS

Data as of 03/22/2015
Statistical data updated weekly on Mondays

http:/ /www.dol.gov/owep/energy/regs/compliance /statistics/WebPages/MADISON, SITE_SP.htm Page 1 of 3


Re: GSI SEC-105 Class size (3rd REQUEST), reply 3/27/15, 8:38 PM

From: Daniel McKeel
To: Inr5 <Irr5@cdc.gov>; dka6 <dka6@cdc.gov>; jfn2 <jin2@cdc.gov>; his8 <his’@cdc.gov>; dss2 <dss2@cdc.gov>; tmk1
<tmk1@cdc.gov>
Cc: jmm0 <jmm0@cdc.gov>; paz7 <paz7@cde.gov>; *
low0 <low0@cdc.gov>; danmckeel2 leiton.rachel
<leiton.rachel@dol.gov>; eky1 <eky1@cdc.gov>
Subject: Re: GSI SEC-105 Class size (3rd REQUEST), reply
Date: Mon, Mar 23, 2015 12:27 pm

Dear Lavon and Ted Katz,
Ted Katz: Please distribute this e-mail thread to all current ABRWH members. Thank you.

This is a simple question that you are avoiding answering. You can, and many times have in your SEC reports to the
Board, indicated how many claimants at particular sites are in an SEC class. That is all | am asking for the General Steel
Industries SEC-00105. | am asking you to break down the claims in the NIOSH defined Class that fall under the GSI

operational (Oct. 1, 1952 through June 30, 1966) and residual periods (July 1, 1966 through December 31, 1993). Thank
you.

-- Dan McKeel 3/23/15

Daniel W. McKeel , Jr., MD

GSI and DOW (IL) and TCC
SEC co-petitioner

SINEW cofounder

so Original Message-----

From: Rutherford, LaVon B. (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS) (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS) <Irr5@cde.gov>

To: Daniel McKeel - Allen, David (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS) (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS) <dka6@cdc.gov>;
Neton, Jim (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS) (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS) <jfn2@cde.gov>; Hinnefeld, Stuart L. (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS)
(CDC/NIOSH/DCAS) <his8@cde.gov>; Sundin, David S. (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS) (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS) <dss2@cde.gov>;
Kinman, Josh (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS) (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS) <eky1 @cdc.gov>

Cc: Melius, James M. (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS) (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS) <jmm0@cde.gov>; Ziemer, Paul (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS)
(COGIMIOSHDCAS) <paz7@cde.gov>;

>; Katz, Ted (CDC/NIOSH/OD) (CDC/NIOSH/OD) <tmk1 @cdc.gov>; Wade, Lewis
(cDCINIosH/OD) (CTR) (CDC/NIOSH/OD) (CTR) <low0@cdc.gov>
Sent: Mon, Mar 23, 2015 11:31 am
Subject: RE: GSI SEC-105 Class size (8rd REQUEST)

Dr. McKeel,

If the Secretary decides to revise her determination regarding the GSI SEC petition, she could designate a class that
includes any part of the operational period and/or residual contamination period at the site. It is impossible to
predict the possible parameters of such a hypothetical revision of the Secretary's previous determination. Further,
DOL, not NIOSH, determines whether a claim is eligible for compensation as a member of the SEC pursuant to the
Secretary's designation of a class. Some of the cancers associated with the SEC include additional qualifications
specified by statute. Therefore, when DOL personnel review a claim to determine eligibility under the SEC, they
must make findings, based on their procedures and policies, that are different than those made when a case is

https://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage Page lof 4


DOW plants at Pittsburg and Walnut Creek were one and the same was

derived. | can only find this conjunction once, in the Class definition provided
by the SEC 216 petitioner(s).

Dow Madison IL site from the DOE EHSS database (3/27/15)
8 - Dow Chemical Corporation (Madison Site)

Also Known As: Madson Site (Spectrulite} ; Soectruite Consortium, Inc. : Corsolidated
Aluminum ;

State: Illincis Location: Madison
Time Period: AWE 1957-1960, Residual Radiation 1964-2007
Facility Type: Atomic Weapons Emoloyer

Facility Description: The Dow facility in Madison, Illincis, sugplied the AEC with
Magnesium-thorium sheets and plates, non radioactive equipment. metal products and
other services. Dow received a purchase order frorm Mallincxrodt in March 1960, for
research and developmert on the extrusion of uraniurn meta! ard rod. Tne Department
of Energy a'so has invoices from 1957 and 1958 indicating that the Ma'linckrodt
Cnemical Company Uranium division purchased magnesium-thorium plates ard sheets
from the Dow Chemical Company in Madison Iilincis

Bow sold this facility in 1969 to Consolidated Aluminum, which continued to operate tne
facility from 1969 tnrough 1985. However, during the period of 1969-1986, the operations
were of a purely commercial nature and did not involve AEC or Department of Energy
contracis, Specirulte subsequently purchased the plant from Consclidated Aluminum

Although this site was designated as part of the Formerly Utilized Site Remediation
Action Program (FUSRAP} in 1992, no remediation work ever took place under the DOE

FUSRAP program prior to that program being transferred to tne Army Corps of Engineers
in 1997

During the period of residual contamination, as designated oy tne Nationa’ Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health and as noted in the dates above, employees of
subsequent owners and operators of this facility are also covered under the Energy
Employees Occupational Iliness Compensation Program Act

Page URL: https://ehss.energy.gov/Search/Facility/ViewByState.aspx
Accessed 3/27/15 by Daniel W. McKeel, Jr, MD


RE: GSI SEC-105 Class size (3rd REQUEST) 3/27/15, 8:30 PM

From: Rutherford, LaVon B. (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS) (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS) <IrrS@cde.gov>

To: Daniel McKeel < ; Allen, David (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS) (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS) <dka6@cdc.gov>;
Neton, Jim (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS) (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS) <jfn2@cdc.gov>; Hinnefeld, Stuart L. (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS)

(CDC/NIOSH/DCAS) <his8@cdc.gov>; Sundin, David S. (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS) (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS) <dss2@cdc.gov>;
Kinman, Josh (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS) (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS) <eky1@cdc.gov>

Cc: Melius, James M. (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS) (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS) <jmm0@cdc. gov>; Ziemer, Paul (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS)
(CDC/NIOSH/DCAS) <paz7@cdc.gov>;

; Katz, Ted (CDC/NIOSH/OD) (CDC/NIOSH/OD) <tmk1 @cdc.gov>; Wade, Lewis
(CDC/NIOSH/OD) (CTR) (CDG/NIOSH/OD) (CTR) <low0@ede. gov>

Subject: RE: GSI SEC-105 Class size (rd REQUEST)
Date: Mon, Mar 23, 2015 11:31 am

Dr. McKeel,

If the Secretary decides to revise her determination regarding the GSI SEC petition, she could designate a class that
includes any part of the operational period and/or residual contamination period at the site. It is impossible to
predict the possible parameters of such a hypothetical revision of the Secretary's previous determination. Further,
DOL, not NIOSH, determines whether a claim is eligible for compensation as a member of the SEC pursuant to the
Secretary's designation of a class. Some of the cancers associated with the SEC include additional qualifications
specified by statute. Therefore, when DOL personnel review a claim to determine eligibility under the SEC, they
must make findings, based on their procedures and policies, that are different than those made when a case is
referred to NIOSH for dose reconstruction. NIOSH is therefore not in a position to undertake the kind of review of
GSI cases that would be required to answer your question.

LaVon

LaVon B. Rutherford, CHP

SEC Health Physics Team Leader

Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS)
(513) 533-6806 Telework Fridays (513) 807-0952

From: Daniel McKeel
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 6:53 PM
To: Rutherford, LaVon B. (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS); Allen, David (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS); Neton, Jim (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS);
Hinnefeld, Stuart L. (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS); Sundin, David S. (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS); Kinman, Josh (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS)
Cc: Melius, James M. (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS); Ziemer, Paul (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS);

; danmckeelz Katz, Ted (CDC/NIOSH/OD); Wade, Lewis (CDC/NIOSH/OD) (CTR)
Subject: Re: GSI SEC-105 Class size (3rd REQUEST)

Hello Lavon and all other DCAS NIOSH recipients, NIOSH Ombudsman Brock and SEC Counselor
Kinman,

Would you please respond to my third straightforward request to be informed, in light of GSI PER-057 being issued
3/11/15, and assuming all 100 reworks with PER POCs greater than 50% are compensated, how many GSI Part B
claimants would be included in the SEC-00105 Class if HHS Secretary Burwell reverses her decision to deny the
special exposure cohort. The reversal could be the result of the 4/17/13 still pending HHS Administrative Review (AR) filed

by the GSI petitioners on April 17, 2013, almost two years ago. The full Board voted 12/11/12 in Knoxville, TN to deny
SEC-00105 by a close 9 to 8 vote.

https://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage Page 1 of 3


Re; CSI SEC-105 Class size (3rd REQUEST), reply 3/27/15, 8:38 PM

Daniel W. McKeel , Jr., MD
GSI, Dow and Texas City Chemicals SEC co-petitioner
Cofounder SINEW

https://mail.aol,com /webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage Page 4 of 4


RE: GSI SEC-105 Class size (3rd REQUEST) 3/27/15, 8:30 PM

To: Lrr5 <Lrr5@cde.gov>

Ce: Imm0 <Jmm0@cdc.gov>; paz7 <paz7@cdc.gov>;
>; danmckeel2

Sent: Sat, Mar 14, 2015 8:09 am

Subject: GS! SEC-105 Class size

Lavon Rutherford CHP

SEC Team Leader

DCAS (NIOSH)

Cincinnati, OH 45226 FACA (Public Law 92-463 1972) REQUEST

March 14, 2015

Dear Mr. Rutherford (Lavon),

Would you please tell me the number of General Steel Industries ("GSI") claimants who are potential SEC-00105 class
members? The ABRWH voted 9 to 8 to deny this SEC on 12/11/12. | don't believe the number of SEC-105 potential class
members was placed into the record prior to that vote. HHS Secretary Sebelius denied SEC-00105 in March of the
following year.

As you know, Mrs. Patricia (Coggins) Jeske and |, acting in our roles as the authorized SEC-105 petitioners for the GSI
site located at 1417 State Street in Granite City, IL AWE site, filed an Administrative Review ("AR") request with the U.S.
Department of HHS on April 17, 2013. That GS] SEC-105 AR is still in process. It is possible, therefore, that HHS
Secretary Sylvia Burwell could reverse the decision to deny SEC-1085 in the near future.

It is deemed necessary for the petitioners to establish how many GSI individual Part B EEOQICPA claimants might be
included in the SEC-105 Class ahead of that decision which could come anytime. We are not privy to an AR decision date.
The full ABRWH membership should also be interested in this SEC-105 class size. Accordingly, | have copied this e-mail
to Drs. Melius as Board chair and Dr. Ziemer as chair of the TBD-6000 (GSI) work group.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,

-- Dan McKeel
Daniel W. McKeel , Jr., MD

GSI, Dow and Texas City Chemicals SEC co-petitioner
Cofounder SINEW

https://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage Page 3 of 3


NIOSH Program Area ~ Radiation Dose Reconstruction ~ Case Information 3/27/15, 1:18 PM

3 Draft dose reconstruction report completed. Administratively closed due to claimant refusal to sign
OCAS-1 form.

4 Of the total active claims at NIOSH, 0 out of 0 (0%), represent dose reconstructions returned to
NIOSH by DOL for rework due to additional employment, an additional cancer needs to be dose

reconstructed, or the affect of a technical change based on a Program Evaluation Report is being
examined.

Page last updated: September 26, 2014
Content source: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Divisi

—<_t
USA =
800-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636) TTY: (888) 232-6348 - Contact CDC-INFO USA.gov

Government SS Wade Easy

http:/ /www2a.cde.gov/ocas/jccu.asp Page 2 of 2


many claimants at particular sites are in an SEC class. That is all | am
asking for the General Steel Industries SEC-00105. | am asking you to
break down the claims in the NIOSH defined Class that fall under the GSI
operational (Oct. 1, 1952 through June 30, 1966) and residual periods
(July 1, 1966 through December 31, 1993). Thank you.

-- Dan McKeel 3/23/15

Daniel W. McKeel , Jr., MD

GSI and DOW (IL) and TCC
SEC co-petitioner

SINEW cofounder

------end of e-mail exchange-------

The GSI petitioners are seeking SEC-105 class size for the AEC
operational period (October 1, 1952 through June 30, 1966) and for the

residual period (July 1, 1966 through December 31, 1993). The ABRWH
should also be interested in these SEC Class size numbers.

| have stated that (a) NIOSH should be able to provide them now, and (b)
NIOSH/DCAS should have provided them as routine information for the
Board to consider prior to the final 9 to 8 vote to deny SEC-105 in
Knoxville, TN on December 11, 2012.

Sincerely and respectfully submitted,
- Daw McKeet_ March 27, 2015

Daniel W. McKeel, Jr., MD

GSI and Dow (IL) and Texas City
Chemical (TX) SEC co-petitioner

SINEW co-founder


Dose Reconstructions

NIOSH Claims Tracking System

(March 3, 2014)

Submitted to NIOSH

Within the SEC period (1947-1957)

Dose reconstructions completed
outside SEC period

Containing internal dosimetry
External dosimetry

In my view, these facts collectively raise the possibility that 107 EEOICPA
part B claimants in a Dow in California) covered facility, as noted yesterday
in the DOL EEOICPA Statistics by State public online database, may be
excluded from SEC-216 recommended for approval by NIOSH and
ABRWH yesterday at the 104th regular meeting of the Board in Richlands,
WA. Thus, potentially, 107 x $150,000 = $16,050,000 in part B
compensation may be at stake or in jeopardy.

With that in mind, the DOL and NIOSH website numbers discrepancy for
Dow California, however trivial the basis may be, nevertheless needs to be
resolved with absolute 100% certainty among the three primary
implementing agencies of EEOICPA, part B. The Board has oversight
responsibility for NIOSH part B activities, including SECs, and therefore
must be involved in this discrepancy resolution process.

| trust this matter will be resolved with certainty prior to the Board's Dow in
California SEC-216 recommendation letter being sent to the HHS
Secretary for further action.

As a footnote to Dow SEC-216, | would note that NIOSH once again has
apparently overlooked NRC as a major resource for providing AEC
licensing information. Dan McKeel obtained 1,016 unredacted pages of


4, The current NIOSH individual claims database arranged by State
shows the following entries for Dow in California and Dow in Illinois:

(a) Dow California (URL: www2a..cdc.gov/ocas/jccu.asp)
See ATTACHMENT C. “Completed final dose reconstruction report 1”

(b) Dow in Illinois (URL: www2a.cdc.gov/ocas/jccu.asp)
See ATTACHMENT D. “Completed final dose reconstruction report 151”

5. | The NIOSH ER for SEC-216 for the Dow California "Pittsburg
California site" lists the following Class definitions requested by the (a)
SEC petitioner and (b) as assigned by NIOSH to be as follows:

(a) Petitioner SEC 216 class definition: (ER page 4 of 48):
“Petition SEC-00216 was received on June 12, 2014, and qualified on August 5,
2014. The petitioner requested that NIOSH consider the following class: All
employees in all areas who worked for Dow Chemical Co. in Pittsburg, CA (aka
Walnut Creek, CA), from 1947-1957.”

McKeel comment: It is this class description alone that refers to
Dow Chemical Co. in Pittsburg and Walnut Creek (aka Walnut Creek, CA)

(b) NIOSH SEC 216 class definition (agreed to and passed by the
ABRWH unanimously on March 26, 2015): (ER page 4 of 48):
“Based on its preliminary research, NIOSH accepted the petitioner-requested
class. NIOSH evaluated the following class: All employees who worked in any
area of the Dow Chemical Company facility in Pittsburg, California, from
January 1, 1947 through December 31, 1957.”

McKeel comment: NIOSH dropped the reference to aka Walnut Creek,
CA, but unfortunately did not describe why this was done in the Evaluation
report. NIOSH actually changed the petitioner defined class slightly but
significantly. The status of the “aka Walnut Creek” was thus left in limbo.

6. The Dow California SEC 216 NOCTIS-based NIOSH slide 3/26/15
showed but a single (n=1) dose reconstruction ever being done at the SEC
facility. The following slide was presented to the full Board by Lavon
Rutherford at its 104" regular meeting in Richlands, Washington.


NIOSH Program Area ~ Radiation Dose Reconstruction - Case Information 3/27/15, 1:25 PM

M Bg Se Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CDC 24/7: Saving Lives Protecting Peopie.TM

Case Statistics

Part B- _ NIOSH Dowe Remmefrustion Referrals froma thee Teparkment “~
Labor

The table below provides the general status for all cases the Department of Labor sent to NIOSH for
dose reconstruction. The table displays the status for all states and work sites. You can use the filter to
get the status for a specific state and/or work site.

Filter Overall Program Statistics By State and Work Site

State: Illinois

Site: Dow Chemical Corporation (Madison Site)

C ]

Cases Referred to NIOSH by DOL Cases
Total Referred to NIOSH by DOL 212)
Cases Currently Returned to DOL (99%)

Completed final dose reconstruction report 151
Withdrawn from NIOSH and dose reconstruction by DOL! 7
Withdrawn from NIOSH and dose reconstruction for SEC2 50)
‘Total Returned to DOL 208
Cases Currently Administratively Closed by NIOSH (0%)3

Total Currently Administratively Closed by NIOSH 1
Cases Currently at NIOSH (1%)

‘Assigned to Health Physicists for dose reconstruction

‘Completed draft dose reconstruction; awaiting OCAS-1

Not yet assigned to Health Physicists for dose reconstruction

‘Total Currently at NIOSH 34

Last Modified: 3/27/2015

1 DOL pulled (withdrew) case from NIOSH and dose reconstruction due to claimant request, claimant
death without a known survivor, or insufficient employment or medical information.

2 NIOSH pulled case from dose reconstruction and returned it to DOL for Special Exposure Cohort
(SEC) consideration.

http://www2a.cde.gov/ocas/jecu.asp Page 1 of 2


Dr. McKeel,

If the Secretary decides to revise her determination regarding the GSI
SEC petition, she could designate a class that includes any part of the
operational period and/or residual contamination period at the site. It
is impossible to predict the possible parameters of such a hypothetical
revision of the Secretary's previous determination. Further, DOL, not
NIOSH, determines whether a claim is eligible for compensation as a
member of the SEC pursuant to the Secretary’s designation of a class.
Some of the cancers associated with the SEC include additional
qualifications specified by statute. Therefore, when DOL personnel
review a claim to determine eligibility under the SEC, they must make
findings, based on their procedures and policies, that are different
than those made when a case is referred to NIOSH for dose
reconstruction. NIOSH is therefore not in a position to undertake the
kind of review of GSI cases that would be required to answer your
question.

LaVon

LaVon B. Rutherford, CHP

SEC Health Physics Team Leader

Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS)
(513) 533-6806 Telework Fridays (513) 807-0952

| replied the same day as follows (ATTACHMENT F is the complete
e-mail thread)):

[MCKEEL RESPONSE HERE]
Dear Lavon and Ted Katz,

Ted Katz: Please distribute this e-mail thread to all current ABRWH
members. Thank you.

This is a simple question that you are avoiding answering. You can, and
many times have in your SEC reports to the Board, indicated how


Re: GS! SEC-105 Class size (3rd REQUEST), reply 3/27/15, 8:38 PM

referred to NIOSH for dose reconstruction. NIOSH is therefore not in a position to undertake the kind of review of
GSI cases that would be required to answer your question

LaVon

LaVon B. Rutherford, CHP

SEC Health Physics Team Leader

Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS)
(513) 533-6806 Telework Fridays (S13) 807-0952

From: Daniel McKeel
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 6:53 PM
To: Rutherford, LaVon B. (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS); Allen, David (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS); Neton, Jim (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS);
Hinnefeld, Stuart L. (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS); Sundin, David S. (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS); Kinman, Josh (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS)
Ce: Melius, James M. (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS); Ziemer, Paul (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS); -

; danmckeel7 Katz, Ted (CDC/NIOSH/OD); Wade, Lewis (CDC/NIOSH/OD) (CTR)
Subject: Re: GSI SEC-105 Class size (3rd REQUEST)

Hello Lavon and all other DCAS NIOSH recipients, NIOSH Ombudsman Brock and SEC Counselor Kinman,

Would you please respond to my third straightforward request to be informed, in light of GS] PER-057 being issued
3/11/15, and assuming all 100 reworks with PER POCs greater than 50% are compensated, how many GSI Part B
claimants would be included in the SEC-00105 Class if HHS Secretary Burwell reverses her decision to deny the
special exposure cohort. The reversal could be the result of the 4/17/13 still pending HHS Administrative Review (AR) filed
by the GSI petitioners on April 17, 2013, almost two years ago. The full Board voted 12/11/12 in Knoxville, TN to deny
SEC-00105 by a close 9 to 8 vote.

| would like to know this information before | make my Public Comment to the Board at its upcoming March 25-26 meeting
in Richlands, WA. Thank you.

-- Dan McKeel 3/19/15

Daniel W. McKeel, Jr., MD
GSI, DOW (IL) and TCC SEC co-petitioner
SINEW cofounder

ooo Original Message-----

From: Daniel McKeel -

To: Lrr5 <Lrr5@cdc.gov>

Ce: Imm0 <Jmm0 @cdc.gov>; paz7 <paz7 @cdc.gov>;
iv : >; danmckeel2

Sent: Tue, Mar 17, 2015 7:13 pm

Subject: Re: GSI SEC-105 Class size (2nd REQUEST)

Hello Lavon,

| know you are busy preparing for the upcoming Board meeting. | am preparing a letter to HHS Secretary Burwell about
the status of the GSI SEC-00105 administrative review (AR). This AR was filed 4/17/13. | would like to provide her with
current statistics on the number of General Steel Industries workers who would currently be in the SEC-105 class? | want
to compare this number to the 196 persons from GSI who were included in PER-057 posted to the DCAS website today. It

https://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage Page 2 of 4


Dragon, Karen E. (CDC/NIOSH/EID)

From: Daniel McKeel -

Sent: Friday, March 2/, 2015 11:23 PM

To: melius@nysliuna.org; melius@nysliuna.org; NIOSH Docket Office (CDC); Katz, Ted
(CDC/NIOSH/OD)

Ce: Kinman, Josh (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS); Hinnefeld, Stuart L. (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS);

leiton.rachel@dol.gov; Rutherford, LaVon B. (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS);

Pat.Worthington@hq.doe.gov; Vance. John@dol.gov: Neton. Jim (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS);
Sundin, David S. (CDC/NIOSH/DCAS); danmckeel: _ . .
. ; kotsch jeffrey@dol.gov; Wade, Lewis (CDC/NIOSH/OD) (CTR);
long.christy@dol.gov; Gregory.Lewis@hq.doe.gov

Subject: ABRWH 104: Dow CA and SEC 105 class size issues

Attachments: McKeel_LTR_ToMelius_3.27.15.pdf

James Melius, Chairman, ABRWH
Members of the ABRWH

Ted Katz, Board DFO

NIOSH Public Docket Office

Dear Dr. Melius,

The attached 25 page PDF file is a summary of research | have recently carried out on the Dow California matter.
Problem delineation: A major discrepancy exists between the number of NIOSH NOCTIS database
claims (n=1) versus the DOL Statistics by State claims database that shows n=107 for the sole "DOW
California" site (issue 1).

| submit evidence that the 107 claims in Dow CA cannot possibly relate to the DOW Madison IL site that has far more
claims as listed on the DOL and NIOSH Attachments | have included in this 25 page information summary.

The big Issue 1 question is: should the 107 claims DOL reports for Dow California be included in the SEC 216 class
recommended by NIOSH and the Board at meeting 104 (3/25/-26/15) in Richlands, WA?

Issue 2 covered in my letter relates to NIOSH not providing the Board or me with the SEC 105 class size (number of
covered claimants) for the 1952-1966 AEC operational period and the 1966-1993 residual periods at General Steel
Industries. That information should be easy to generate now, and should have been provided before the Board voted on
SEC-105 on 12/11/12. | believe the SEC-105 petitioners have a right to know this information. | would hope the Board and
the HHS Secretary would want to know the SEC-105 class size as well since an administrative review for the GS| SEC
has been underway since 4/17/13.

Action Requests:

[1] | am asking Ted Katz to please distribute this cover letter and PDF file to all current Board members.

[2] | also am asking the NIOSH Docket Office to please consider posting this cover letter and PDF file on the DCAS
website as part of GSI Docket 140 (where SEC-108 files are posted) and as part of Dow California Docket 060 (where
SEC 216 records are posted).

[3] | would appreciate receiving confirmation from you that this research material has been received by you and the
Board.

Thank you.
Sincerely,
-- Dan McKeel 3/27/15

Daniel W. McKeel, Jr., MD
GSI and DOW (IL) and Texas City


U.S. Department of Labor - Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP)

Part B

Applications Filed

Final Decisions

Compensation Paid

Medical Bills Paid

Total Compensation + Medical Bills Paid

Approved

Denied
Total

Payments
Total Dollars

Total Dollars

http://www.dol.gov/owcp/energy/regs/compliance/statistics/WebPages/DOW_CHEM_CO.htm

3/27/15, 1:12 PM

CLAIMS CASES
107 91
24 20

77 69
101 89
23 19
$2,850,000
$453,621
$3,303,621

Page 2 of 3


U.S. Department of Labor - Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) 3/27/15, 1:12 PM

United States Department of Labor

Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP)

EEOICP Program Statistics

Last year, the DEEOIC deployed a new case management system for use by our claims : .

staff. The new system is constructed differently than the previous system, and we Highlights

determined that it was appropriate to re-examine our statistics and how they are q pee

displayed on the web site. For the past several months, we have been working on = View Part B Statistics

reconstructing the site and the statistics, Therefore, viewers may notice some

differences in the web statistics. = View Part B NIOSH and istis

The separate category for the non-covered applications has been removed and those
counts are now included in the Final Decision counts, Although the number of posted denials appears to increase, there is not an increase in total
numbers. Denials are being shown under a single category instead of being split into two separate counts.

In the past, on our state-by-state pages, medical bill payments were attributed to each state in which any claimant (including multiple survivors) on
the case resided, resulting in an overstatement of the amount of medical bill payments in a given state. Medical bill payments are now being
attributed to the state in which the employee resides. Although the National page total was not affected by this change, the current state medical
totals will show a reduction from previously-reported amounts.

A list of definitions for the terms used on the EEOICP Program Statistics web pages is available here.

DOW CHEMICAL CO - CALIFORNIA
Data as of 03/22/2015
Statistical data updated weekly on Mondays

http://www.dol.gov/owcp/energy/regs/compliance/statistics /WebPages/DOW_CHEM_CO.htm Page 1 of 3


GSI By-Products materials licensing information that was widely used by
NIOSH and SC8A and the Board in deciding the fate of SEC-00105. The
following NIOSH slide from Lavon Rutherford’s 3/26/15 ABRWH 104
presentation supports my point: NRC is missing from the list. This
oversight should be remedied.

Sources of Available Information

NIOSH Site Research Data Base: 166 documents
Claim file

DOW headquarters

Landauer

Department of Energy Office Scientific Technical
Information

Former worker interviews (3)
Other standard data searches conducted

ISSUE 2: THE CLASS SIZE (OPERATIONAL AND RESIDUAL
PERIODS) FOR GSI SEC-00105

General Steel Industries (GSI) SEC-00105 is currently

under administrative review (AR submitted 4/17/13) by HHS. The
possibility thus exists the HHS Secretary could reverse the denial of SEC-
00105 and approve it. As authorized NIOSH SEC-105 co-petitioner,
speaking for myself and primary petitioner Patricia (Coggins) Jeske, | have
requested multiple times for NIOSH, DCAS Division, to supply us with the
number of claims at GSI! that would be included in the SEC-105 class,
should the HHS Secretary approve the SEC based on the HHS AR
recommendation and other factors. Lavon Rutherford, speaking for DCAS,
replied to my third request one day before the 104th ABRWH meeting, as
follows:

[RUTHERFORD RESPONSE HERE: ATTACHMENT E entire e-mail)]


RE: GS! SEC-105 Class size (3rd REQUEST) 3/27/15, 8:30 PM

| would like to know this information before | make my Public Comment to the Board at its upcoming March 25-26 meeting
in Richlands, WA. Thank you.

~- Dan McKeel 3/19/15

Daniel W. McKeel, Jr., MD
GSI, DOW (IL) and TCC SEC co-petitioner
SINEW cofounder

-----Original Message-----

From: Daniel McKeel <

To: Lrr5 <Lrr5@cde.gov>

Ce: Jmm0 <Jmm0@cde.gov>; paz7 <paz7 @cdc.gov>;
danmckeele -

Sent: Tue, Mar 17, 2015 7:13 pm

Subject: Re: GS! SEC-105 Class size (2nd REQUEST)

Hello Lavon,

| know you are busy preparing for the upcoming Board meeting. | am preparing a letter to HHS Secretary Burwell about
the status of the GSI SEC-00105 administrative review (AR). This AR was filed 4/17/13. | would like to provide her with
current statistics on the number of General Steel Industries workers who would currently be in the SEC-105 class? | want
to compare this number to the 196 persons from GS! who were included in PER-057 posted to the DCAS website today. It
would be ideal to be able to tell Secretary Burwell how many SEC-105 class members there are assuming (a big
assumption) that all 100 GS! "re-works" being returned to NIOSH under PER-057 are compensated. That would leave a
residual number of denied GSI claimants who might be included in the SEC class. | will really appreciate your assistance
on this matter. | need the number of SEC105 class members if the SEC were reversed and approved this month (March
2015), another best case (optimal claimant favorable) assumption. Thank you very much.

~Dan McKeel 3/17/15
Daniel W. McKeel , Jr., MD

GSI, Dow (IL) and TCC SEC co-petitioner
SINEW cofounder

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel McKeel

https://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage Page 2 of 3


employees-occupational-illness-compensation-program-act-of-2000-as-
amended

3. The current DOE facility list database:

(URL: http://ehss.energy.gov/Facility/findfacility.aspx) also lists but one
"Dow" covered EEOICPA site in California, as follows (Note: the DOL
database link to an older version of this DOE database before the EHSS
changes did not work 3/26/15 and needs to be updated):

1 - Dow Chemical Company

Also Known As: Pittsburg, CA

State: California Location: Pittsburg
Time Period: 1947-1957

Facility Type: Atomic Weapons Employer

Facility Description: The Dow operation involved process studies

and experimental investigations on different uranium ores and
thorium-bearing ores, including pilot-scale solvent extraction of uranium from
phosphoric acid.

[page URL: https://ehss.energy.gov/Search/Facility/ViewByName.aspx]

The same EHSS DOE database listing for the Dow Madison site in Illinois
follows on the next page. These are completely different corporate facilities
under the very broad DOW Chemical umbrella.

Note there is no DOL, NIOSH and DOE database facility listing by State that
includes more than One “DOW” or “DOW Chemical” site in the State of California.
That is, there is no listing that shows two (2) DOW in California AWE or DOE
EEOICPA 2000 covered facilities.

Thus, there is no support for two separate AEC contracts being awarded for a
Walnut Creek California site and a Pittsburg California site. The DOE facility
database (EHSS version) currently lists only a Dow, Pittsburg CA AWE site.

NIOSH and Lavon Rutherford need to clarify where the idea that the California


U.S. Department of Labor - Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP)

Part B
Applications Filed
Final Decisions

Approved
Denied
Total

Compensation Paid
Payments

Medical Bills Paid

Total Compensation + Medical Bills Paid

Total Dollars

Total Dollars

http://www.dol.gov/owcp/energy/regs/compliance /statistics /WebPages/MADISON, SITE_SP.htm

3/27/15, 1:12 PM

CLAIMS CASES
500 382
188 128
280 244
468 372
187 128

$19,200,000
$3,011,508
$22,211,508

Page 2 of 3


NIOSH Program Area ~ Radiation Dose Reconstruction - Case Information 3/27/15, 1:18 PM

COC 24/7. Saving Lives Protecting People TM

(arse Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(ti

Case Statistics

Part B - NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Referrals from the Department of
Labor

The table below provides the general status for all cases the Department of Labor sent to NIOSH for
dose reconstruction. The table displays the status for all states and work sites. You can use the filter to
get the status for a specific state and/or work site.

Filter Overall Program Statistics By State and Work Site

State: California

Site: | Dow Chemical Company

C }

Cases Referred to NIOSH by DOL Cases
Total Referred to NIOSH by DOL 1
Cases Currently Returned to DOL (100%)
Completed final dose reconstruction report

Withdrawn from NIOSH and dose reconstruction by DOL!
Withdrawn from NIOSH and dose reconstruction for SEC?

+ Io JLo |le

Total Returned to DOL

Cases Currently Administratively Closed by NIOSH (0%)3

Total Currently Administratively Closed by NIOSH te)
Cases Currently at NIOSH (0%)

Assigned to Health Physicists for dose reconstruction te)
Completed draft dose reconstruction; awaiting OCAS-1 )
Not yet assigned to Health Physicists for dose reconstruction )
Total Currently at NIOSH o4

Last Modified: 3/27/2015

1 DOL pulled (withdrew) case from NIOSH and dose reconstruction due to claimant request, claimant
death without a known survivor, or insufficient employment or medical information.

2 NIOSH pulled case from dose reconstruction and returned it to DOL for Special Exposure Cohort
(SEC) consideration.

http://www2a.cde.gov/ocas /jccu.asp Page 1 of 2


Letter to Dr. James Melius, Chair, ABRWH - March 27, 2015

Dear Dr. Melius,

The more | reflect on the SEC 216 matter, and another SEC-105 issue that
has arisen, neither of which were resolved during ABRWH meeting #104,

| offer the following summary issue-related information to you as Board
chair. | am also copying the same data to Rachel Leiton of DOL and to
Stuart Hinnefeld of NIOSH and to Pat Worthington of DOE as those who
are primarily responsible for resolving the apparent discrepancy between
the relevant NIOSH and DOL and DOE web-based public databases
related to the Dow California site(s), “Pittsburg” and “Walnut Creek” sites
(ISSUE 1).

The other issue (ISSUE 2) that came to a head is that NIOSH (Lavon
Rutherford) claims it is "impossible" to provide a class size estimate for
GSI SEC-00105 (see ATTACHMENTS E and F). | challenge that refusal,
and believe the SEC class sizes for 1952-66 and 1966 to 1993 can and
should be provided to me as authorized SEC-00105 co-petitioner and to
Patricia Jeske as the primary SEC-00105 petitioner without further delay.

ISSUE #1 - DISCREPANT NIOSH, DOL & DOE WEBSITE DATA FOR
DOW CALIFORNIA (Walnut Creek and Pittsburg)

ts DOL's EEOICPA Statistics by State and Worksite website (URL:
http://www.dol.gov/owcp/energy/regs/compliance/statistics/Statistics.htm)
as of yesterday lists 107 claims submitted for a California site they refer to
as "Dow California." That data does NOT refer to the Dow Madison IL site
which | track every couple of days as the authorized SEC-00079 co-
petitioner. (ATTACHMENTS A (Dow CA) and B (Dow IL).

2: DOE list: No (zero) California "Dow" facilities are listed as DOE or
DOE for a "period of environmental remediation" on a list signed by Gary
A. Steinberg, Acting Director, OWCP (Federal Register/Vol. 80, No.
12/Tuesday, January 20, 2015/Notices). Govt. Printing Office. URL:
http:/Awww.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-01-20/pdf/2015-00784.pdf).

+ A DOL link to this document with explanatory text is available: URL:
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/20 15/0 1/20/2015-00784/energy-


Re: GSI SEC-105 Class size (3rd REQUEST), reply 3/27/15, 8:38 PM

would be ideal to be able to tell Secretary Burwell how many SEC-105 class members there are assuming (a big
assumption) that all 100 GSI "re-works" being returned to NIOSH under PER-057 are compensated. That would leave a
residual number of denied GSI claimants who might be included in the SEC class. | will really appreciate your assistance
on this matter. | need the number of SEC105 class members if the SEC were reversed and approved this month (March
2015), another best case (optimal claimant favorable) assumption. Thank you very much.

- Dan McKeel 3/17/15

Daniel W. McKeel , Jr., MD
GSI, Dow (IL) and TCC SEC co-petitioner
SINEW cofounder

-----Original Message-----

From: Daniel McKeel

To: Lrr5 <Lrr5@cde.gov>

Ce: Jmm0 <Jmm0@cde.gov>; paz7 <paz7 @cde.gov>;
>; danmckeel2

Sent: Sat, Mar 14, 2015 8:09 am

Subject: GSI SEC-105 Class size

Lavon Rutherford CHP

SEC Team Leader

DCAS (NIOSH)

Cincinnati, OH 45226 FACA (Public Law 92-463 1972) REQUEST

March 14, 2015

Dear Mr. Rutherford (Lavon),

Would you please tell me the number of General Steel Industries ("GSI") claimants who are potential SEC-00105 class
members? The ABRWH voted 9 to 8 to deny this SEC on 12/11/12. | don't believe the number of SEC-105 potential class
members was placed into the record prior to that vote. HHS Secretary Sebelius denied SEC-00105 in March of the
following year.

As you know, Mrs. Patricia (Coggins) Jeske and |, acting in our roles as the authorized SEC-105 petitioners for the GS!
site located at 1417 State Street in Granite City, IL AWE site, filed an Administrative Review ("AR") request with the U.S.
Department of HHS on April 17, 2013. That GS] SEC-105 AR is still in process. It is possible, therefore, that HHS
Secretary Sylvia Burwell could reverse the decision to deny SEC-105 in the near future.

It is deemed necessary for the petitioners to establish how many GSI individual Part B EEOICPA claimants might be
included in the SEC-105 Class ahead of that decision which could come anytime. We are not privy to an AR decision date.
The full ABRWH membership should also be interested in this SEC-105 class size. Accordingly, | have copied this e-mail
to Drs. Melius as Board chair and Dr. Ziemer as chair of the TBD-6000 (GSI) work group.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

-- Dan McKeel

https://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage Page 3 of 4


Chemicals SEC co-petitioner
SINEW cofounder


U.S. Department of Labor - Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) 3/27/15, 1:12 PM

Part B Cases - NIOSH Statistics
Part B - Status and Location of NIOSH Referrals

Cases Referred to NIOSH for Dose Reconstruction (DR) 30
Cases Returned by NIOSH

With Dose Reconstruction (DR) 28

Without Dose Reconstruction (DR) Zz

Total 30

Cases Currently at NIOSH 0

“1 Most cases without a DR are cases withdrawn from NIOSH for DOL review and approval based on a new SEC
designation. Other reasons for withdrawal include administrative closure, death of claimant.

Part B - Cases with Dose Reconstruction (DR) and Final Decision

Final Decision to Accept and Probability of Causation (POC)

50% or Greater 12
Cases Paid 12
Individual Claims Paid 16
Amount Paid $1,800,000

Final Decision to Deny and POC Less Than 50% 15

Total 27

http://www.dol.gov/owcp/energy/regs/compliance /statistics/WebPages /DOW_CHEM_CO.htm Page 3 of 3


U.S. Department of Labor - Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) 3/27/15, 1:12 PM

Part B Cases - NIOSH Statistics
Part B - Status and Location of NIOSH Referrals

Cases Referred to NIOSH for Dose Reconstruction (DR) 189
Cases Returned by NIOSH

With Dose Reconstruction (DR) 128

Without Dose Reconstruction (DR) TM 57

Total 185

Cases Currently at NIOSH 4

“1 Most cases without a DR are cases withdrawn from NIOSH for DOL review and approval based on a new SEC
designation. Other reasons for withdrawal include administrative closure, death of claimant.

Part B - Cases with Dose Reconstruction (DR) and Final Decision

Final Decision to Accept and Probability of Causation (POC)

50% or Greater 45
Cases Paid 45
Individual Claims Paid 61
Amount Paid $6,750,000

Final Decision to Deny and POC Less Than 50% 78

Total 123

http://www.dol.gov/owcp/energy/regs/compliance /statistics/WebPages /MADISON_SITE_SP.htm Page 3 of 3