DOW SEC-00079 PRESENTATION
 

Daniel W. McKeel, Jr., M.D.
 

ABRWH – May 3, 2007
 

My remarks today will be focused entirely on issues that affect the Dow Special Exposure 

Cohort SEC-00079. Arthur Wieder is the designated section 83.14 petitioner and I am his 

Authorized SEC petitioner. I represent members of the Southern Illinois Nuclear Workers or 

SINEW. 

There are five overarching issues that I will address in turn. 

TIMELINESS ISSUES 

• McKeel was first notified about a Dow 83.14 on 9/6/06 by Lavon Rutherford of NIOSH and a 

“litmus case” candidate was tentatively identified. I was informed that ORAU would construct a 

class definition and select a final litmus case in the next 30 days; 

• 62 days later I was informed the first litmus case—a worker who first filed in August 2001— 

started work after the end of the covered period of 1960 and therefore had been rejected; 

• Mr. Wieder received his Form A from NIOSH (~11/07/2007); 

• Court reporter verbatim transcripts, McKeel Powerpoints, and videotape recordings of three 

July-August Dow worker meetings, including a NIOSH Outreach meeting, were delivered to 

NIOSH in November 2006; 

• Mr. Wieder returned his signed Form A with 37 affidavits to NIOSH on November 27, 2007; 

• SEC presentation to the Board was postponed by NIOSH shortly before the Dec. 07 Naperville, 

IL, meeting; 

• SEC-00079 petition was qualified 12/14/06 and published in the Federal Register; 

• NIOSH sent a letter to Dow headquarters on 1/30/07 requesting monitoring, source term and 

operations data, and information related to magnesium-thorium alloy shipments, from 1957 to 

1998 relating to the Dow Madison IL site; 

• SEC presentation to the Board was postponed by NIOSH shortly before the Feb. 7-9 Mason, 

Ohio, meeting; 

• “Dow SEC Update” session was held 2/8/07 at ABRWH meeting. A 7384W subpoena to 

obtain Dow Madison records was discussed and the Board tasked SC&A to become familiar with 

Dow SEC records; 

----------------------------------------------delays increase----------------------------------------------------

• Three Dow worker meeting transcripts posted on OCAS website 4/17-19/07; 

• Dow SEC petition with first 37 affidavits posted on OCAS website ___________________; 

• Dow second set of 29 affidavits posted on OCAS website ~4/18/07; 11 workers testify that

Dow shipped truckloads of magnesium-thorium allow to AEC and Rocky Flats in

Colorado; 

• SEC-00079 evaluation report was posted on OCAS website April 19, 2007; 

• Four members of the IL Congressional delegation requested the Board to extend the Dow SEC 

Class definition to cover the 1961-1998 residual uranium period (4/27/07); 

• Dow Midland posted a 52 MB Zip-compressed archive with hundreds of documents on an FTP 

server at midnight 4/27/07 minus any index or explanation of what the documents represented; in 

2006 the same group had indicated to SINEW they had no (zero) responsive records; 

- 1 -
• Feb. 8, 2007, ABRWH meeting transcript was posted 4/30/07 afternoon; 

• Larry Elliott informed me by e-mail that new Dow files NIOSH received 4/27/07 will cause 

NIOSH to ask the Board to delay a vote on the Dow SEC petition on May 3; 

THE NIOSH SEC-00079 EVALUATION REPORT POSTED ON OCAS 4/19/07 

testimony. NOTE THERE IS NO DOW MADISON SITE PROFILE and the DOW SITE 

SPECIFIC APPENDIX TO BATTELLE TIB-6000 WILL NOT BE FORTHCOMING 

• We have 22 specific concerns with this report that translated into 14 specific questions that 

were presented to Larry Elliott at OCAS on 4/17/07. A copy is attached of these concerns and 

questions and they should be carried as an integral part of this presentation; 

• Eight of the 14 questions were treated as FOIA requests. SINEW has requested that this 

decision be rescinded for the air monitoring and dose rate data and the References and that these 

data and reports be sent to me immediately as part of the SEC petitioner openness policy. 

• The following points were most disturbing after the long wait and late arrival of this report: 

(1) The limitation of the Class to 1957-60 and exclusion of the uranium residual period was not 

adequately justified; 

(2) The important negotiations with Dow Midland for Madison records was not even 

acknowledged or described as to outcome; 

(3) The crucial affidavit testimony regarding a close working relationship between the AEC, 

Rocky Flats and the Dow Madison site for thorium alloys was overlooked, an inexcusable 

oversight and rebuff to the workers and to all the people that carefully prepared this site expert 

according to Larry Elliott with Dr. Lewis Wade in a three-way 4/17/07 phone conversation. 

(4) We disagree that ORAUT-OTIB0004 Rev2 is adequate to reconstruct uranium doses at

Dow because this technical document does not adequately cover exposures to uranium

extrusion and rod straightening in the rolling mill section. 

EXTENSION OF THE CLASS DEFINITION TO COVER THE URANIUM RESIDUAL 

PERIOD 

• As of 4/26/07 the Madison site has submitted 322 Part B and E claims, 278 cases representing

261 unique individuals, with 107 cases having been referred to NIOSH. Only two (2) dose 

reconstructions have been performed at the Madison site since 2001 and one claimant has been 

paid. Claims have been submitted for Dow, Consolidated Edison (Conalco) and Spectrulite 

Consortium, Inc. (SCI) representing the main successive owners from 1951 until today; 

• OCAS acknowledges repeatedly that petitioner McKeel is interested in having the SEC cover 

the residual contamination period from 1961 to 1998 in addition to the operational period of 

1957-60 for Mallinckrodt experimental uranium extrusion and rod straightening work; 

• Approximately 70 claims will be covered under a 1957-60 Class definition, where the

broader Dow Class from 1957 to 1998 would include 23 additional workers including the

candidate litmus claimant who filed in August 2001 and whose Part B claim is still pending; 

• Feb. 8, 2007 Larry Elliott acknowledges in public session that EEOICPA does not preclude 

SEC coverage of the residual uranium period and that this period is covered for ordinary dose 

reconstructions; 

• NIOSH SEC evaluation report admits regular EEOICPA claims can be compensated for 1957-

1998 but limits the Class definition to 1957-60 with a flawed and hard to grasp explanation; 

- 2 -
• Illinois U.S. Senators Durbin and Obama and U.S. Congressmen Costello and Shimkus join in 

bipartisan request to NIOSH to extend Class coverage out to 1998. 

DOW MADISON RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION 

AND THORIUM PRODUCTION AND RESIDUAL CONTAMINATION 

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2000 FUSRAP report contention that “no Dow Madison site 

thorium work was AEC related” cannot be backed up by primary documents in June, 2006 

meeting between USACE, SINEW members and Congressman Shimkus’ staff in St. Louis. Te 

Corps did find thorium and uranium dust being co-located above the extrusion press rafters in 

Building 6. We contend the AEC and commercial thorium streams at Madison site are not 

separable and hence thorium should be calculated in dose reconstructions throughout both

the residual uranium and thorium contamination periods up to 1998. 

• Eleven (11) Dow workers provide sworn notarized affidavits to the effect that the

Madison plant shipped truckloads of thorium-magnesium metal alloy to Rocky Flats and

the AEC. These affidavits go unchallenged for credibility by NIOSH at the time of submission. 

SINEW strongly argues that the affidavits are credible and were neither “coached” nor 

“anecdotal” as characterized unofficially by NIOSH, but never in writing to the petitioners 

McKeel and Wieder. McKeel and SINEW pro bono attorney Joseph Kumierczak strongly protest 

characterization of Dow affidavits as being coached or anecdotal. This is done in writing to the 

Advisory Board Chair and to Dr. Wade as the Designated Federal Official (DFO). 

• Dow Midland documents received 4/27/07 prove that Dow Madison provided sintered 

magnesium (SLIDE #1) magnesium-thorium alloy (SLIDE #2) to Mallinckrodt Chemical 

Works Uranium Division operations and the AEC. 

• Pangea Group May 2006 thorium inventory (SLIDES #3 and #4) shows widespread residual 

thorium metal throughout former Dow plant buildings complex. This report was generated Dow 

Madison is decommissioning its current thorium license (IL-01795) with the state of Illinois. 

HARM TO THE WORKERS, INCLUDING BERYLLIUM EXPOSURE 

• Dow reports such as that by Silverstein in 1957 suggest that the Madison site had an active well 

honed worker safety program. 

• Nothing could be further from the truth as revealed by worker affidavits and meeting 

transcripts. including the NIOSH Outreach meeting held in Collinsville, IL, on 8/22/07. This was 

session where workers passed the microphone down the rows and gave their testimony freely. 

• The risk of handling uranium and especially thorium and beryllium were downplayed to the 

workers and even to supervisors by plant management. 

• There were numerous magnesium and thorium related fires and explosions, and workers 

injuries and deaths. OSHA was called in for many of these accidents; 

• There were periodic “special metal” or “PE” (photoengraving plates was a major Dow product) 

metal extrusion and rolling mill runs where the workers asked but were not told the true nature of 

the metal. They guessed it was some sort of thorium compound based on the tell-tale behavior in 

the heated extrusion process; 

• No individual dosimetry data exists for Dow workers that has been produced by DOE,

NIOSH, Landauer or by Dow in our current negotiations. 

• The workers indicate that badges were “cosmetic,” being worn for certain inspections and then 

discard without, according to the workers, being read. 

- 3 -
___________________________________________ 

• The workplace at Dow Madison was dirty, with high amounts of thorium-rich fumes and 

smoke from the “pot room” that spilled over to other buildings and even led to plant shutdowns. 

• The workers handled large quantities of pure thorium and beryllium metal as alloy components 

from the 1950s through part of the 1990s. 

• Dr. Lar Fuortes is studying at least ten former Dow workers for respiratory illnesses to rule out 

chronic beryllium lung disease and/or pulmonary disease (especially fibrosis) related to thorium 

exposure that is apart from malignancy; 

• The Madison plant produced LockAlloyTM beryllium-aluminum metal starting in 1963. 

• Besides the FUSRAP uranium cleanup in 1998 in Building 6, the affidavits and meeting 

transcripts record many “private” cleanups at the Madison site. Two major ones were in 1993 

when ERG of Albuquerque, NM, removed more than 850 rail cars of magnesium-thorium sludge 

offsite to Utah and the current Pangea thorium license decommissioning cleanup that is ongoing. 

In summary (with 9 slide Powerpoint presentation), I believe the Dow Madison section 83.14 

SEC-00079 Class should be extended from 1957-60 to 1957-1998 to cover at least the uranium 

production and residual contamination periods. Because of the AEC related thorium work with 

Mallinckrodt and Rocky Flats, and given the fact that commercial/military and thorium waste 

streams cannot be separated, we believe the SEC should also include the dual uranium and 

thorium residual contamination period. The Dow Madison workers were definitely severely 

harmed at this site for decades. They deserve to be honored by extending the SEC Class to cover 

the full period of harm they have been subjected to for decades. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 

Daniel W. McKeel, Jr., M.D. 4/30/07 

Designated Dow SEC-00079 petitioner 

Southern Illinois Nuclear Workers (SINEW) 

Contact information: 

5587-C Waterman Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63112 

Phone: (314) 367-8888 

Fax: (314) 367-7663 

E-mail: danmckeel2@aol.com 

- 4 -
DowSEC-00079: SEC-00079: Petitioner Petitioner
 

DanielW.McKeel, McKeel, Jr.,M.D.
 

May3,2007ABRWHMeeting Meeting
 

Denver, Denver, Colorado Colorado
 
SLIDE 5 - DOE Facilities
 
SLIDE 1-A
 

Date 10/28/57
 
SLIDE 1-B
 

OCTOBER 28, 1957 MCW Purchase Order to Dow
 
DOW SEC-00079 SLIDE 2-A
 

Date 3/17/58
 
Slide 2-B/C
 
SLIDE 3
 

Pangea June 2005 Thorium Inventory Pangea June 2005 Thorium Inventory
 
SLIDE 4
 

Pangea June 2005 Thorium Inventory Pangea June 2005 Thorium Inventory
 Table 4.1, pp 14-15 of 39 (continued) 
DowSEC-00079: SEC-00079: Summary Summary

• Dow Madison site contracted for uranium work 

with AEC (MCW) during 1957-60, and 

• Dow Madison supplied AEC (MCW) with 

sintered magnesium and magnesium -?H21 

thorium alloy during 1957 and 1958, and 

• Commerical and AEC thorium waste streams are 

inseparable in still contaminated site, thus 

•	 Dow SEC should cover 1957-1998 throughout 

uranium/thorium production & residual periods 
McKeel critique of NIOSH evaluation report of Dow SEC-00079 

PETITIONERS INITIAL RESPONSE TO THE
 

NIOSH EVALUATION OF DOW SEC-00079
 

RECEIVED APRIL 13, 2007
 

-- Dan McKeel, 4/17/07 --

Overview of Specific Concerns and Objections 

1. The qualifications of the single author, James Mahathy of ORAU, and of the ORAU 

reviewer Michael S. Kubiak, are not stated except that they work for ORAU. 

2. The report (page 11) states NIOSH does have “access to the air monitoring and dose rate 

data” from both Dow and AEC but does not cite the source or provide the actual the data – where 

is this data? Petitioner needs a copy as soon as possible. The possession of this monitoring data 

was not disclosed to the petitioner even though he asked for all data that OCAS/NIOSH 

possessed about the Madison site and was assured by Mr. Elliott and Laurie Breyer there was 

none. 

3. The affidavit and worker transcript richly documented Rocky Flats connection and 

shipments of hundreds of tons of magnesium-thorium alloy sheets from Madison to RF and 

return shipments, plus movements and exchanges of personnel between the two sites, is not 

mentioned. This was further documented at the February 8, 2007, “Dow SEC Update” session of 

the ABRWH meeting in Mason, Ohio, near Cincinnati. Petitioner provided a copy of the PDF 

file of his Powerpoint presentation from that day on 2/8/07 to Chris Elliott of OCAS, who 

assured him this data would be shared with all parties who would be evaluating the SEC petition. 

4. The primary source of the opinion that all thorium work at Dow was “commercial” is not 

given other than reference to a FUSRAP report that itself failed to cite any primary sources for 

this “fact.” Petitioner provided the contact information to Mr. Elliott at OCAS of the two people 

he met with from the St. Louis District, Army Corps of Engineers, in June 2006 regarding this 

matter (Mark Wunch and Gregory Raimondo). Petitioner asserts that 11 Dow workers have 

provided affidavits attesting to shipments of “truckloads” of magnesium-thorium alloy from 

Dow Madison to Rocky Flats in Colorado, a facility that was only engaged in AEC activities, 

and in which Dow Chemical was prime contractor between 1951-75. 

These 11 affidavits will be delivered to Larry Elliott at OCAS on April 17, 2007 to 

supplement the primary initial documentation offered in McKeel’s Powerpoint presentation on 

Feb. 8, 2007 at the Mason, Ohio, ABRWH meeting that was given to OCAS the same day.

The petitioner asserts the 11 affidavits from former Dow, Conalco and Spectrulite

Consortium, Inc. workers constitute clear evidence that part of the Dow (Madison) thorium 

was AEC related. Petitioners have vigorously sought confirmation that such a contract existed, 

believing it must have been for the RF work force to be able to take over the Dow Madison 

extrusion presses and postpone other Dow work while doing so (Dow affidavits attest to this 

fact). Information that a Dow (Madison)-Rocky Flats-AEC contract existed was sought from 

both Dow Midland in two campaigns in 2006 and 2007, and from DOE thorough the FOIA 

process (one is currently pending), and from a series of interactions with Glenn Podonsky, Roger 

Anders and Libby White. These efforts resulted in the release of the Dow Chemical Rocky Flats 

- 1 -
McKeel critique of NIOSH evaluation report of Dow SEC-00079 

primary contract and certain other documents that were partly responsive to a letter to DOE from 

Illinois Senator Barack Obama. Those documents have been posted on the OCAS website. The 

petitioner wonders why Mr. Mahathy did not cite the Dow Contract and other documents that 

were posted on OCAS well before the evaluation report was finalized at NIOSH?

Of equal relevance, the DOE Office of Worker Advocacy website Considered Sites

Database says that Dow provided to Mallinckrodt “metal magnesium metal products.” Dr. 

McKeel wrote Glenn Podonsky and Libby White of DOE a letter dated 2/24/07, with copies to 

Larry Elliott and Laurie Breyer of NIOSH, seeking clarification of this statement. The letter has 

not yet been answered despite several follow up requests to do so. “Magnesium” metal product 

shipped from the Madison site to clients was most often magnesium-thorium alloy rather than 

pure magnesium metal. This statement strongly implies that Dow (Madison) did supply

another AEC facility besides Rocky Flats, that is Mallinckrodt Chemical Works (MCW),

which is now recognized as two DOE EEOICPA sites (Destrehan Street and Weldon

Spring) whose former worker claimants are eligible for part E coverage, with magnesiumthorium alloy providing additional proof that part of the Dow (Madison) thorium waste

stream was AEC related. 

Furthermore, petitioner asserts the impossibility of separating the commercial,

military and AEC (MCW, RF) related thorium streams at Dow (Madison). This fact is 

bolstered by cleanup reports by Pangea Group of St. Louis in 2003, two in March and June of 

2005, and possibly one in 2006 or 2007 related to the current ongoing thorium license 

decommissioning activities that petitioner alerted NIOSH to in his 8/22/06 NIOSH Outreach 

meeting and 2/8/07 Dow SEC Update ABRWH Powerpoint presentations. Copies of the two 

Powerpoint files were furnished on the days of presentation to OCAS./NIOSH and Mr. Elliott. 

Petitioner was assured these materials would be available to all parties (hence to Mr. Mahathy, 

involved in assessing the Dow SEC-00079 petition. Why did Mr. Mahathy not cite them? 

5. The report does not adequately address why the residual uranium contamination

period should not be included in the Dow Madison SEC-00079 Class definition. The SEC 

coverage during the residual period contamination period, that was promised by Larry Elliott in 

his first delay letter, and acknowledged to be a known concern of the petitioner, is not addressed 

but briefly (on page 14, paragraph 1) and inadequately so, in this report (see concern #4). 

At the 2/8/07 Dow SEC Update session Mr. Elliott confirmed in public that EEOICPA 

does not contain language that explicitly excludes the residual period from SEC coverage. There 

is a logical and scientific discrepancy whereby NIOSH does include the residual contamination 

period for ordinary dose reconstructions on individual claimants but routinely excludes it from 

coverage under SECs (has never been covered under any SEC awarded thus far according to 

Richard Miller, formerly of GAP). After the 2/8/07 Dow session, both Dr. Paul Ziemer and Dr. 

Lewis Wade came up to the petitioner and gave their word the Board was considering covering 

“the rest of the Dow workers” (i.e., those who will be excluded form the limited 1957-60 class 

definition) by “including the residual uranium contamination period that extends from 1961-

1998” and is covered by ordinary dose reconstructions. I expect them to honor their word. 

6. Petitioner provided NIOSH with a complete list of AEC, NRC and Illinois state (IEMA, 

Nuclear Safety Division) thorium licenses granted to Dow, Conalco and SCI in his 8/22/06 and 

2/8/07 Powerpoint presentations to NIOSH and the Advisory Board. Why were these licenses not 

examined and cited as references by Mr. Mahathy? Why does Mr. Mahathy not refer to these 

- 2 -
McKeel critique of NIOSH evaluation report of Dow SEC-00079 

Powerpoints? Has he not been granted access to and alerted about their existence? Petitioner 

states this is a serious concern regarding the level of diligence that went into the preparation of 

this evaluation report and assessing whether or not any of the Dow Madison thorium work was 

AEC related. Not doing so in turn affects the decision whether or not the Class definition should 

include the residual thorium contamination period that overlaps with the residual uranium period. 

Note also that the petitioner was not informed that Mr. Mahathy was the sole author/owner of the 

NIOSH evaluation report of Dow SEC-00079 until an electronic copy was provided to him on 

4/13/07. 

7. The evaluation report on page 10 states that Thorium was used only in Building 6, the 

“pot room” and the 40 acre plot. This is not correct. Rather, as noted in McKeel’s Powerpoints of 

8/22/06 to NIOSH at the Dow Outreach session (transcripts of which should be available to Mr. 

Mahathy) and 2/8/07 to the Advisory Board, Pangea Group’s June 2006 thorium survey revealed 

thorium metal throughout the Madison/Spectrulite facility in a much wider disposition. Again, 

one wonders whether Mr. Mahathy has read the Pangea reports or McKeel’s two Powerpoints? 

Larry Elliott recently claimed these reports were not germane to the SEC evaluation, but 

obviously they are in providing a detailed inventory of the disposition of thorium throughout the 

entire Madison site complex of buildings and the 40 acre plot. 

8. All of the documentation provided by the petitioner to OCAS/NIOSH is not 

acknowledged including the 7/21/06, 8/11/06 and 8/22/06 NIOSH Outreach meeting transcripts 

that are still being redacted 4.5 months after receipt by OCAS, by the Atlanta CDC/ATSDR 

office. Efforts to get that office to provide a release date have been unsuccessful despite repeated 

attempts through Laurie Breyer’s OCAS and Lyn Armstrong’s CDC/ATSDR FOIA offices. 

9. OTIB-6000 and the Dow site-specific appendix are not mentioned for how NIOSH 

believes it can calculate accurate and timely dose reconstructions for extruded and straightened 

uranium rods. Where are the data and guidance documents that would allow this calculation? 

10. The missing (marked “Reserved”) highly relevant section 7.2 on Thorium of OTIB-6000 

is not mentioned. The petitioner has repeatedly requested to know when this key section will be 

made available to him and to the public. NIOSH has failed to respond. 

11. The four NRC documents that delayed presentation of the SEC to the Board in February 

2007 and the delivery of the Dow SEC-00079 evaluation report are not discussed as they should 

be. What action was taken to investigate them. 

12. The saga of negotiations with Dow, including Stuart Hinnefeld’s 1/30/07 letter to Mr. 

Blackhurst and the Dow Senior Managing Council in Midland, Michigan, the KusmierczakMcKeel-Dow Midland 10/2/06 telephone conference call, and the two closure conferences with 

David Bernick on 3/28/07 and 4/5/07 are not mentioned at all. Also not mentioned is the 61 page 

PDF SINEW and the petitioner supplied to OCAS and Mr. Elliott to document the 2006 

negotiation SINEW and the petitioner and Senator Obama’s office had in the 2006 and 2007 

negotiations were not mentioned. Nor are the exchanges documented between the petitioner, 

NIOSH and the ABRWH, Paul Ziemer and Lewis Wade, made February 8, 2007 regarding the 

issuance of a Section 7384w subpoena to Dow mentioned. The transcript of the highly relevant 

- 3 -
McKeel critique of NIOSH evaluation report of Dow SEC-00079 

2/8/07 ABRWH still has not been released. This is unconscionable. ALL documents used and 

that are available to be used to prepare the SEC evaluation report are supposed to be listed. 

13. Where is the documentation for the statement that Dow (Madison) was sold by Dow to 

Conalco in 1969? Petitioner believes the correct sale date was 1973. 

14. Why does the evaluation report not address the fact that USACE found uranium and 

thorium dust co-located in the Building 6 rafters in the 2000 FUSRAP closure report for the 

Madison site? The ORNL radiological site survey documented this fact as well. 

15. Page 14 mentions “...interviews of former Dow Madison workers...” but does not 

provide details. The petitioner wants to know who these workers were and the dates of the 

interviews and who they were conducted by? 

16. Why is the 1993 Environmental Restoration Group (ERG, Albuquerque, NM) cleanup of 

the 40 acre plot near Building 7 not mentioned? Dow paid more than $17 million towards this 

effort, long after the Madison site had been sold, because of their recognized liability (DowAetna lawsuit abstract furnished by Linda Dean). More than 800 rail cars of magnesium-thorium 

sludge were removed offsite in operations that further exposed SCI workers to radiation. Why 

was this report not captured and used in the assessment of the Dow SEC-00079 petition by Mr. 

Mahathy? Again, concerns are raised about the level of thoroughness of the evaluation report by 

ORAU and NIOSH. 

17. The report does not mention that in the Quit Claim deed of 1951 whereby Dow acquired 

the Madison plant from GSA there is mentioned that Dow was part of the National Industrial 

Reserve and the National Security Clause. The implications of these provisions with respect to 

U.S. Government ownership and/or a proprietary interest in the Madison site between 1951 and 

1959 when these two provisions were in effect. 

18. Why did Mr. Mahathy not interview the petitioner, Dan McKeel, who is by now a 

recognized site expert on the Dow, Madison site? 

19. The report should mention explicitly that the Dow Madison site does not have a site 

profile TBD, and that the site is covered under Battelle Task Order-16 that is currently in its final 

stages. It should be further mentioned for factual completeness that only two DR have been 

done. The fact that Lavon Rutherford first notified Dan McKeel on 9/6/06 that an 83.14 SEC 

would be awarded for Dow (Madison) should be noted. Furthermore, more than two months 

elapsed after that before a Form A was sent to the eventually selected petitioner (the first 

candidate was eliminated because d his employment started after 1960). It then took four more 

weeks for the petitioner, who had not attended any worker meetings or signed an affidavit, to 

complete Form A and sign the SEC Authorization form naming Daniel W. McKeel, Jr. 

20. The petitioner strongly disputes that ORAUT-OTIB-0004 is scientifically valid to 

reconstruct uranium doses at Dow for the following reasons: (a) In the whole history of 

EEOICPA NIOSH has only completed two dose reconstructions for Dow Madison claimants and 

OTIB-0004 has been available since June, 2004, (b) Larry Elliott has said that this TIB cannot be 

- 4 -
McKeel critique of NIOSH evaluation report of Dow SEC-00079 

used to reconstruct doses at General Steel Industries which also did work on MCW uranium 

ingots, (c) The proper document to use is Battelle TIB-6000 with the Dow specific appendix. 

21. Why does Mr. Mahathy believe that Silverstein 1957 refers to Dow Madison operations 

rather than to Dow in general that had at least three other thorium sites (Bay City and Midland, 

Michigan, and Walnut Creek, California? The latter facility processed both uranium and thorium 

ores for the AEC according to the DOE Considered Sites Database. 

22. Petitioner notes that the existence of DOW workplace monitoring data in Section 5.3 on 

page 12 is at odds with Mr. Elliott’s repeated statements that OCAS had no dosimetry data for 

the Dow Madison site. Petitioner s are supposed to be provided by NIOSH with all

unclassified data that NIOSH possesses about the Dow Madison site. This was not done. 

Petitioner was improperly not informed this important data existed. The question of whether all 

of the Dow Madison thorium is “commercial” and is not related to AEC activities is still in 

dispute. Petitioner has cited evidence that Dow magnesium-thorium alloy was provided to two 

AEC facilities (MCW in Missouri and Rocky Flats in Colorado). This evidence will be presented 

to the Board on May 3, 2007 when the Dow SEC will be voted upon. 

- 5 -
McKeel critique of NIOSH evaluation report of Dow SEC-00079 

Request for Immediate Release of Documents to the Petitioner (by Overnight Courier) 

1. An INDEX of every document that NIOSH, ORAU or Battelle possesses regarding

the Dow (Madison) site. 

2. A copy of every document mentioned in the References on pages 17 and 18 of the

evaluation report. (Note: The AEC 1960 document defining the thorium source term cited 

has figures that massively underestimate the thorium estimates of workers in the 7/21/06,

8/11/06 and 8/22/06 transcripts and in their 56 affidavits cited in part in the 2/8/07 Dow SEC 

Update presentation Dan McKeel made to the Advisory Board.) 

3. The air monitoring data that NIOSH alleges it “does have access to the air

monitoring and dose rate data” on page 11, paragraph 1, of the evaluation report. Please

send Dan McKeel these complete data and explain why the existence of these data was not

acknowledged and provided previously when Mr. Elliott was asked for Dow dosimetry

data. 

4. A biographical sketch, resume and/or formal Curriculum Vitae of the preparer and

owner of this report, James Mahathy (Lead Technical Evaluator) and of Michael S. 

Kubiak, who completed the ORAU review. Validate his qualifications to prepare this

report as a site expert and the full extent of his efforts to capture relevant data. For

example, did he speak with David Bernick? 

5. Any and all primary source documents (other than secondary FUSRAP/USACE

2000 reports) that validate NIOSH’s statement that all thorium work at Dow (Madison)

was “commercial,” that is, not AEC related. 

6. Provide an answer to the petitioner why the coverage under the residual

contamination period was not discussed in detail in the report as Mr. Elliott promised it

would be. 

7. The immediate release of the 2/8/07 ABRWH meeting transcript that covers the

Dow SEC Update session conversations between McKeel, Robert Stephan, the Advisory

Board and the Advisory Board’s tasking of SC&A to perform a targeted review of the Dow

SEC. Petitioner has requested the release of this vital document repeatedly. 

8. I will make a FOIA request if necessary for every and all communications (letters,

Faxes, e-mails) between NIOSH and DOL regarding the Dow SEC-00079 Class definition. 

9. A FOIA request if necessary for every and all communications (letters, Faxes, emails) between NIOSH, ORAU and Battelle regarding the Dow (Madison) site SEC-00079

petition and dose reconstructions for the site held between September 1, 2006, and today

(4/16/07). 

- 6 -
_____________________________________________________ 

McKeel critique of NIOSH evaluation report of Dow SEC-00079 

10. An explanation why the Rocky Flats connection claimed by the petitioner based on

affidavits sent 4/17/07 to NIOSH and described to them on 2/8/07 at the Mason Ohio

ABRWH session “Dow SEC Update” was not adequately addressed? 

11. An explanation why the result of the Hinnefeld-Dow 1/30/07 letter and the Dow

negotiations with David Bernick were not addressed in the evaluation report? 

12. Will the single preparer of the evaluation report, Mr. James Mahathy, be present on

May 3, 2007 at the Board meeting to answer questions from the Board and the petitioner

and possibly SC&A? His presence is crucial to answer questions posed to him by Dr.

McKeel and the petitoners. 

13. Regarding the alleged peer review by NIOSH of this ORAU single preparer Dow

SEC-00079 evaluation report (Mr. Mahathy), who if anyone besides Lavon Rutherford was

on the NIOSH peer review team and how much time did they spend peer reviewing the

report? Was there any written correspondence documenting this peer review process

(should I make this part of a FOIA request)? 

14. The petitioner wants a complete listing of all interviews that ORAU and/or NIOSH

conducted with former Dow workers other than the 8/22/06 Outreach meeting in

Collinsville, IL. 

Dan McKeel 4/17/07 

Daniel W. McKeel, Jr., M.D. DATE 

Dow SEC Authorized petitioner 

Southern IL Nuclear Workers (SINEW) 

Phone: 314-367-8888 or 573-323-8897 

Fax: 314-367-7663 or 573-323-0043 

E-mail: danmckeel2@aol.com 

Mail: 5587-C Waterman Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63112 

or P.O. Box 15 / 1106 Sycamore Drive, Van Buren, MO 63965 

- 7 -
Request for Immediate Release of Documents to the Petitioner (by Overnight Courier) 

1. An INDEX of every document that NIOSH, ORAU or Battelle possesses regarding the 

Dow (Madison) site. To be addressed/handled by the FOIA Office 

2. A copy of every document mentioned in the References on pages 17 and 18 of the 

evaluation report. (Note: The AEC 1960 document defining the thorium source term cited has 

figures that massively underestimate the thorium estimates of workers in the 7/21/06, 8/11/06 

and 8/22/06 transcripts and in their 56 affidavits cited in part in the 2/8/07 Dow SEC Update 

presentation Dan McKeel made to the Advisory Board.) To be addressed/handled by the 

FOIA Office 

3. The air monitoring data that NIOSH alleges it “does have access to the air monitoring 

and dose rate data” on page 11, paragraph 1, of the evaluation report. Please send Dan McKeel 

these complete data and explain why the existence of these data was not acknowledged and 

provided previously when Mr. Elliott was asked for Dow dosimetry data. To be 

addressed/handled by the FOIA Office 

4. A biographical sketch, resume and/or formal Curriculum Vitae of the preparer and owner 

of this report, James Mahathy (Lead Technical Evaluator) and of Michael S. Kubiak, who 

completed the ORAU review. Validate his qualifications to prepare this report as a site expert 

and the full extent of his efforts to capture relevant data. For example, did he speak with David 

Bernick? You may check the biographs and disclosure forms for these two 

contract staff individuals on the ORAU website at http://www.oraucoc.org/ 

5. Any and all primary source documents (other than secondary FUSRAP/USACE 2000 

reports) that validate NIOSH’s statement that all thorium work at Dow (Madison) was 

“commercial,” that is, not AEC related. To be addressed/handled by the FOIA Office 

6. Provide an answer to the petitioner why the coverage under the residual contamination 

period was not discussed in detail in the report as Mr. Elliott promised it would be. The 

Evaluation Report does provide adequate treatment of the residual 

contamination period – see note at top of page 14, last sentence of section 6.1,

last sentence of 1st paragraph of section 6.2. This Evaluation Report identifies

a class for which under 42 CFR part 82, section 82.12, NIOSH has identified a 

class under 42 CFR part 83, section 83.14 for which dose reconstruction

(internal thorium dose) can not be reconstructed. As with 83.14 SEC classes, 

the intent is to add the class as expeditiously as possible once a component of 

dose which can not be reconstructed is identified. As we work through the

“partial dose reconstructions” for non-presumptive claims, we will 

demonstrate our ability to reconstruct uranium dose during the covered AEC

period and the residual AEC contamination period. 

- 1 -
7. The immediate release of the 2/8/07 ABRWH meeting transcript that covers the Dow 

SEC Update session conversations between McKeel, Robert Stephan, the Advisory Board and 

the Advisory Board’s tasking of SC&A to perform a targeted review of the Dow SEC. Petitioner 

has requested the release of this vital document repeatedly. As mentioned during the

phone call yesterday, the transcript will be made available as soon as it is 

delivered to NIOSH. 

8. I will make a FOIA request if necessary for every and all communications (letters, Faxes, 

e-mails) between NIOSH and DOL regarding the Dow SEC-00079 Class definition. To be 

addressed/handled by the FOIA Office 

9. A FOIA request if necessary for every and all communications (letters, Faxes, e-mails) 

between NIOSH, ORAU and Battelle regarding the Dow (Madison) site SEC-00079 petition and 

dose reconstructions for the site held between September 1, 2006, and today (4/16/07). To be 

addressed/handled by the FOIA Office 

10. An explanation why the Rocky Flats connection claimed by the petitioner based on 

affidavits sent 4/17/07 to NIOSH and described to them on 2/8/07 at the Mason Ohio ABRWH 

session “Dow SEC Update” was not adequately addressed? As discussed by phone, DOE 

and DOL, not NIOSH, have responsibilities for determining what facilities

and time periods are covered by EEOICPA; thus, this is outside the purview

and responsibility of NIOSH and without factual information/documentation 

concerning exposure related to the AEC operations at the facility (beyond

what we already have) this has no bearing on the Evaluation Report for SEC

petition. 

11. An explanation why the result of the Hinnefeld-Dow 1/30/07 letter and the Dow 

negotiations with David Bernick were not addressed in the evaluation report? At this point in 

time, Dow headquarters has not provided any new information for

consideration relevant our ability to reconstruct dose at Dow Madison and to

the SEC petition evaluation. Thus, there is nothing germane from this 

interaction to be included in the Evaluation Report. 

petitoners. 

12. Will the single preparer of the evaluation report, Mr. James Mahathy, be present on May 

3, 2007 at the Board meeting to answer questions from the Board and the petitioner and possibly 

SC&A? His presence is crucial to answer questions posed to him by Dr. McKeel and the 

No, this individual will not be present. As stated yesterday, the

Evaluation Report is a NIOSH document and will be presented to the Board 

by the NIOSH OCAS Technical Program Manager, Stu Hinnefeld . 

- 2 -
_____________________________________________________ 

13. Regarding the alleged peer review by NIOSH of this ORAU single preparer Dow SEC00079 evaluation report (Mr. Mahathy), who if anyone besides Lavon Rutherford was on the 

NIOSH peer review team and how much time did they spend peer reviewing the report? Was 

there any written correspondence documenting this peer review process (should I make this part 

of a FOIA request)? To be addressed/handled by the FOIA Office 

14. The petitioner wants a complete listing of all interviews that ORAU and/or NIOSH 

conducted with former Dow workers other than the 8/22/06 Outreach meeting in Collinsville, IL. 

To be addressed/handled by the FOIA Office 

Dan McKeel 4/17/07 

Daniel W. McKeel, Jr., M.D. DATE 

Dow SEC Authorized petitioner 

Southern IL Nuclear Workers (SINEW) 

Phone: 314-367-8888 or 573-323-8897 

Fax: 314-367-7663 or 573-323-0043 

E-mail: danmckeel2@aol.com 

Mail: 5587-C Waterman Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63112 

or P.O. Box 15 / 1106 Sycamore Drive, Van Buren, MO 63965 

- 3 -