Document Ra3yLM87MQR6r6jdQwXEj9Lja

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attach: Bruce Jarnot <jarnotb@api.org> Thursday, November 18, 2004 9:01 PM (GMT) benzconsort-tc@listserve.api.org Howard Feldman <Feldman@api.org>; Mark Fitzsimmons (E-mail) <mfitzsim@steptoe.com> BHRC-TC... Draft Conf Call Minutes Draft Minutes BHRC-TC Conf Call 11 18 2004. doc BHRC Technical Committee & colleagues - Attached are draft minutes for your review and feedback; due to the quick response needed for open action items, this DRAFT file is being circulated for parallel reviews vs. serial Legal and Chair preview ... Thanks in advance! Bruce. SHELL-MCCLURG-052917 Benzene Health Research Consortium Technical Committee Draft Minutes Conference Call - 18 Nov 2004 Participants Patrick Beatty (ChevronTexaco) Steve Bose (ExxonMobil) Don Burnett (BP) Stuart Cagen (Shell) Jennifer Galvin (ConocoPhillips) Howard Feldman (API; part-time) Bruce Jarnot (API) Administrative Items Call was conducted in accordance with API antitrust guidelines Agenda: discuss I review "action items" generated at early-November OC meeting in Houston o Expectation to provide update(s) by 10 December 2004 Background Most Action Items can likely be met by PI discussion(s) $3.3MM gap identified by Pis has led to sense of urgency o OC deferred most action items to the TC o Funding required to carry the studies to completion o Approx 2x of Rich Irons Oct 2004 estimate o Possible BP $1.7MM added contribution? o May not include Richard's T&E increase, post-2007 General Discussion Items Acticil"l- Prioritization under current funding? (Alternate approach, still pending ... ) o Prioritization by SRP/ERP o Prioritization by Pis? o Consequences & implications noted if studies re-scoped by prioritization Draft Minutes for Review Page 1 of 3 SHELL-MCCLURG-052918 Benzene Health Research Consortium Technical Committee Meeting Notes o OC has ID'ed -$600K possible cost savings ("sweat equity" approach) Added cost of exposure assessment o How much of Yimei's costs embedded in Richard's re-analysis? 2-month (longer?) replacement for Patrick not ID'ed (ChevronTexaco) o Patrick will be on short term disability starting end-of-December ~IW8.ii8.iat Discuss "Action Items" in-person with Richard o Benefit seen of having Denver meeting with Richard & -TC o Invite Otto to attend/participate? Action:o Patrick/Stuart to call or email regarding possible meeting Long-standing Action Items ActiOn: Review Munich attendee list for possible scientific involvement follow-up o Defer to 2005, pending resolution of scope scale-back & budget reanalysis o Might this miss a window of opportunity (risk of becoming a "stale issue"?) ActiOn: Do we need a formal QAlQC audit of Shanghai? o liBBBlllil affirm recommendation that this -$1 OOK line-item be dropped o QAlQC will be internally covered by JCML lab accreditation o 18~pi6p8;it TC delegation to visit & "spot check" lab operations Goes toward demonstrating sponsor due diligence New Action Items Nat Rothman (NCI Investigator) proposed NCI/Consortium collaboration o NCI China CC Study proposed, beginning 2007 o Action: TC to discuss NCI's offer with PI's o Ir8iffips.llil include in PI discussions A\ct!oo: options for JCML continuation, via outside funding? o Contingent upon Fudan plans ... Draft Minutes for Review Page 20f3 SHELL-MCCLURG-052919 Benzene Health Research Consortium Technical Committee Meeting Notes o Continue within School of Public Health (i.e., likely to be shut down) o Or establish JCML as separate, free-standing department o Fudan decision possible by end-of-year o lildWb.issl Ask Richard if he sees value in having Company rep's meeting with Fudan (risk of sponsors "taking sides" with internal Fudan politics?) o Wf6iffiBI;t include in PI discussions Action: confirm Budget Re-analyses as being complete & comprehensive o Anything overlooked (e.g., Richard T&E cost increase) o Any "cost overlap" (e.g., Yimei's time-in-field in Richard's re-analysis vs. EMBSI funding her effort) o WiaffiBI;t include in PI discussions Action: reality check of exposure assessment o Do we need more than a yes/no for CC exposures? o Is there an association between Bz and NHL? AML? o CC dose-response may be "nice to have", but not critical to study o 1f.8.iffiB.i"m:l: check w/ SRP & Pis ... can we cut back on level of assessment? - don't need to hit a home run each time to win the game o Ir8iffips.llil include in PI discussion 1. Pis to reconsider "what can really be done" in exposure assessment?" 2. Will this provide some of the answers (may be an ethics consideration) Draft Minutes for Review Page 30f3 SH ELL-MCCLU RG-052920