Paul
Lewis
05/
27/
2004
01:
52
PM
To:
Susie
Wilcher/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
cc:
Subject:
RE:
May
7
Voice
mail
Susie,

Here
is
the
email
from
Dennis
Morgan
as
you
requested.
Thanks.

Paul
Paul
Lewis
FIFRA
Scientific
Advisory
Panel
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
202
564
8381
lewis.
paul@
epa.
gov
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Paul
Lewis/
DC/
USEPA/
US
on
05/
27/
2004
01:
53
PM
­­­­­
Dennis
Morgan
<
dennis_
morgan@
msn.
com>
05/
20/
2004
11:
44
AM
To:
Lewis.
Paul@
epamail.
epa.
gov
cc:
Dorsey.
Larry@
epamail.
epa.
gov
Subject:
RE:
May
7
Voice
mail
Dear
Mr.
Lewis;

I
apologize
for
the
delay
in
responding
to
you,
I
have
been
out
of
the
country
and
could
not
access
my
email
accounts.
As
you
have
seen
in
the
email
traffic
between
Jack
Housenger
and
myself,
there
is
a
lack
of
concurrence
on
what
the
panel
said
and
why
the
said
it
regarding
the
use
of
an
uncertainty
factor
less
than
1.
I
would
like
you
to
send
the
attached
email
thread
to
the
panel
so
the
panel
has
a
clear
understanding
of
what
the
Antimicrobial
Division
thinks
they
have
heard.
The
panel
then
will
have
an
opportunity
to
address
that
specific
area
of
ambiguity
in
the
written
report.

Dennis
Morgan
Forest
Products
Research
Laboratory
LLC
Tel:
541­
484­
9477
Fax:
541­
484­
5881
Mob:
541­
954­
6849
­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­
From:
Lewis.
Paul@
epamail.
epa.
gov
[
mailto:
Lewis.
Paul@
epamail.
epa.
gov]
Sent:
Friday,
May
14,
2004
12:
36
PM
To:
Dennis
Morgan;
Housenger.
Jack@
epamail.
epa.
gov;
Jim
Aidala;
Kipp
Coddington;
Lynn
Bergeson;
Leighton.
Timothy@
epamail.
epa.
gov;
Dorsey.
Larry@
epamail.
epa.
gov
Subject:
RE:
May
7
Voice
mail
Dear
Mr.
Morgan,

Thank
you
for
your
note
concerning
the
FIFRA
SAP's
deliberations
at
its
May
4­
6,
2004
meeting.
As
you
know,
the
Panel
is
currently
preparing
its
meeting
minutes,
summarizing
their
recommendations
at
the
meeting.
If
you
have
additional
comments
you
desire
to
share
with
the
Panel,
please
provide
them
to
me
and
they
will
be
distributed
to
both
the
Panel
and
the
public
via
the
EPA,
Office
of
Pesticide
Program
docket.
However,
please
be
advised
that
it
is
the
Panel's
discretion
to
consider
such
materials
since
the
FIFRA
SAP
meeting
has
ended.

Sincerely,

Paul
Lewis
Paul
Lewis
FIFRA
Scientific
Advisory
Panel
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
202
564
8381
lewis.
paul@
epa.
gov
Larry
Dorsey
To:
Jack
Housenger/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
05/
14/
2004
09:
15
cc:
Dennis
Morgan
<
dennis_
morgan@
msn.
com>,
Jim
Aidala
<
jaidala@
lawbc.
com>,
Kipp
AM
Coddington
<
KCoddington@
alston.
com>,
Lynn
Bergeson
<
lbergeson@
lawbc.
com>,
Paul
Lewis/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Timothy
Leighton/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Subject:
RE:
May
7
Voice
mail(
Document
link:
Paul
Lewis)

Good
Morning.
The
report
will
capture
what
was
discussed,
decided,
and
recommended
by
the
panel
at
the
meeting.
I
would
like
to
stress
that
this
is
an
independent
peer
review
panel.
As
part
of
our
process,
after
a
meeting
has
concluded,
individuals
can
submit
additional
materials
to
the
panel
through
the
DFO
(
Paul
Lewis).
These
materials
will
distributed
to
the
panel
and
the
public
docket.
It
is
at
the
panels
discretion
to
use
materials
submitted
after
a
meeting.
In
some
cases,
materials
have
been
requested
by
the
panel
at
a
meeting
and
these
materials
have
been
submitted
to
the
panel
to
be
used
by
the
panel
in
the
drafting
of
the
report.
These
materials
are
generally
for
points
of
clarification
for
the
panel.

I
certainly
hope
that
everyone
will
respect
this
process
and
not
compromise
the
independence
of
the
panel
members
in
the
drafting
of
the
meeting
report.

Jack
Housenger
To:
Dennis
Morgan
<
dennis_
morgan@
msn.
com>
05/
13/
2004
07:
38
cc:
Jim
Aidala
<
jaidala@
lawbc.
com>,
Kipp
Coddington
<
KCoddington@
alston.
com>,
Lynn
PM
Bergeson
<
lbergeson@
lawbc.
com>,
Larry
Dorsey/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Paul
Lewis/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Timothy
Leighton/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Subject:
RE:
May
7
Voice
mail(
Document
link:
Larry
Dorsey)

Denny,
I
don't
think
that
is
necessary
they
should
be
writting
the
final
report
as
clearly
as
they
can
Paul
and
Larry
will
ensure
that
they
do
so
Jack
E.
Housenger,
Associate
Director
Antimicrobials
Division
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
703­
308­
8163
Visit:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
pesticides/

Dennis
Morgan
<
dennis_
morgan@
ms
To:
Jack
Housenger/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
n.
com>
cc:
Lynn
Bergeson
<
lbergeson@
lawbc.
com>,
Jim
Aidala
<
jaidala@
lawbc.
com>,
Kipp
Coddington
<
KCoddington@
alston.
com>

05/
12/
2004
11:
17
Subject:
RE:
May
7
Voice
mail
AM
Jack;

I
realize
that
you
and
your
team
are
busy,
and
I
do
appreciate
your
responses.
Would
it
help
if
I
forwarded
this
e­
mail
thread
to
Dr.
Menne,
Dr.
Foulds
and
Dr.
Pleus
so
they
can
be
aware
of
the
confusion
and
hopefully
address
these
issues
in
the
written
report?

Denny
­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­
From:
Housenger.
Jack@
epamail.
epa.
gov
[
mailto:
Housenger.
Jack@
epamail.
epa.
gov]

Sent:
Wednesday,
May
12,
2004
4:
36
AM
To:
Dennis
Morgan
Cc:
Susy
Hazen;
Jim
Aidala;
Kipp
Coddington;
Lynn
Bergeson;
Jones.
Jim@
epamail.
epa.
gov;
Sanders.
Frank@
epamail.
epa.
gov;
Chen.
Jonathan@
epamail.
epa.
gov;
McMahon.
Tim@
epamail.
epa.
gov;
Cook.
Norm@
epamail.
epa.
gov;
Leighton.
Timothy@
epamail.
epa.
gov;
Dang.
Winston@
epamail.
epa.
gov
Subject:
Re:
May
7
Voice
mail
Denny,
I
didn't
want
you
to
think
I
was
not
going
to
respond
to
your
email.
We
were
offsite
yesterday
at
an
all
day
retreat.
First
let
me
say
that
I
think
we
were
very
happy
to
get
the
guidance
that
we
got
from
the
SAP
and
to
also
to
get
it
in
real
time.
Having
said
this,
what
the
SAP
actually
said
specifically
won't
be
certain
until
the
final
report
comes
out
which
is
what
I
was
attempting
to
say
in
my
voice
mail
to
you.
Although
we
have
a
good
idea,
I
think
you
said
it
best
in
your
email
that
perhaps
we
heard
something
different
because
of
our
differing
involvements.
The
final
report
will
have
recommendations
that
will
be
put
onto
paper
and
give
us
clear
guidance
as
well
as
justifications.
We
typically
take
the
panel's
recommendations
and
then
decide
what
our
position
is.
As
Lynn
points
out,
we
are
under
no
legal
obligation
to
accept
the
recommendations,
however,
as
we
talked
about
earlier,
these
are
the
experts
that
we
assembled
to
give
us
guidance
and
we
would
approach
this
with
that
in
mind.
Until
we
get
their
report
in
writing;
however,
I
don't
feel
comfortable
saying
definitively
that
a
certain
value
with
all
the
uncertainty
factors
accounted
for
is
where
the
Agency
is
going
to
end
up
and
having
you
conduct
a
study
based
on
that
level.
I'd
be
happy
to
discuss
this
with
you
further
if
you'd
like
to.

Jack
E.
Housenger,
Associate
Director
Antimicrobials
Division
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
703­
308­
8163
Visit:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
pesticides/

Dennis
Morgan
<
dennis_
morgan@
ms
To:
Jack
Housenger
<
housenger.
jack@
epamail.
epa.
gov>
n.
com>
cc:
Lynn
Bergeson
<
lbergeson@
lawbc.
com>,
Susy
Hazen
<
hazen.
susan@
epamail.
epa.
gov>,
Jim
Aidala
05/
10/
2004
11:
45
<
jaidala@
lawbc.
com>,
Kipp
Coddington
AM
<
KCoddington@
alston.
com>

Subject:
May
7
Voice
mail
Jack;

Thanks
for
leaving
the
voice
mail
on
my
cell,
Friday
at
5:
00
p.
m.
EDT.
I
was
in
the
air
between
Baltimore
and
Denver.
Lynn
had
told
me
after
our
March
3
meeting
that
the
EPA
was
not
under
any
legal
requirement
to
follow
the
recommendations
of
the
SAP.
You
and
I
had
already
discussed
that
issue
in
a
previous
phone
call
and
I
recall
you
saying
that
it
would
be
very
difficult
for
the
agency
not
to
follow
the
recommendations
the
SAP.
I
would
like
to
remind
you
that
it
was
your
management
that
called
for
this
SAP
to
see
if
they
could
get
a
conclusive
answer
to
the
dermal
sensitization
issue
regarding
our
ACC
application.

I
understand
what
you
believe
you
heard
regarding
the
uncertainty
factor
less
than
one.
Perhaps
because
of
my
involvement
with
the
development
of
our
presentation
I
heard
something
different
than
you
did.
I
heard
that
for
dermal
sensitization
the
test
vehicle
has
to
match
the
exposure
vehicle
or
there
should
be
use
of
uncertainty
factors
from
less
than
one
to
a
value
greater
than
one.
Some
examples,
that
I
heard
the
panel
mention
were
LLNA
test
vehicle
or
DMSO
when
the
exposure
is
via
water
or
human
sweat
then
a
value
less
than
one
should
be
used
by
the
EPA
because
DMSO
is
a
strong
skin
penetrant
when
compared
to
water
or
human
sweat.
A
converse
would
be
if
a
wood
preservative
were
applied
in
DMSO
and
the
test
vehicle
for
the
LLNA
was
1
%
L92
then
based
on
the
data
presented
the
UF
should
be
at
least
2
or
greater.

For
patch
testing,
Dr.
Menne
reported
in
the
meeting
that
occluded
patch
testing
was
a
much
more
severe
testing
environment
than
the
open
exposure
expected
from
treated
wood.
There
are
several
reports
in
the
literature
that
support
this
position.
The
SAP
recommended
an
UF
of
0.1
in
this
case
because
of
the
large
body
of
evidence
in
the
literature
that
Dr.
Menne
and
Dr.
Foulds
were
aware
of
that
show
at
least
a
10
fold
difference
in
dose
between
occluded
and
open
testing
for
the
same
hapten
including
hexavalent
chromium.

I
would
submit
to
you
that
based
on
our
Jan.
28
meeting
and
again
on
Jim
Jones
comments
on
Mar.
3,
in
that
the
agency
is
concerned
about
causing
induction
in
the
general
population
and
wants
to
know
about
the
impact
on
the
sensitive
population
that
the
range
of
endpoints
given
by
the
SAP
(
0.3
to
0.09
ug/
cm2)
is
below
the
levels
that
would
be
protective
of
the
general
population
for
the
prevention
of
induction.

I
am
concern
that
the
EPA
did
not
like
what
the
heard
last
week,
and
is
now
preparing
to
ignore
the
recommendations
of
the
SAP,
because
the
SAP
did
not
agree
with
the
EPA's
position
prior
to
the
SAP.

Dennis
Morgan
Forest
Products
Research
Laboratory
LLC
Tel:
541­
484­
9477
Fax:
541­
484­
5881
Mob:
541­
954­
6849
­­­­­
Message
from
"
Dennis
Morgan"
<
dennis_
morgan@
msn.
com>
on
Fri,
14
May
2004
09:
52:
53
­
0700
­­­­­
To:
<
Housenger.
Jack@
epamail.
epa.
gov>
cc:
"'
Jim
Aidala'"
<
jaidala@
lawbc.
com>,
"'
Kipp
Coddington'"
<
KCoddington@
alston.
com>,
"'
Lynn
Bergeson'"
<
lbergeson@
lawbc.
com>,
<
Dorsey.
Larry@
epamail.
epa.
gov>,
<
Lewis.
Paul@
epamail.
epa.
gov>,
<
Leighton.
Timothy@
epamail.
epa.
gov>
Subject:
RE:
May
7
Voice
mail
Jack;
I
think
that
your
decision
not
to
ask
the
panel
to
clarify,
what
is
obviously,
a
central
point
in
their
presentation
and
a
point
that
you
are
well
aware
has
a
significant
impact
on
the
ACC
registration
is
unfortunate.
You,
clearly
have
an
opportunity
here
to
have
a
very
specific
question
answered
by
the
leading
scientist
in
this
specific
discipline,
why
not
take
advantage
of
it?
I
will
be
very
disappointed,
if
the
agency
does
not
ask
for
clarification
on
this
issue,
then
uses
the
lack
of
clarity,
to
support
the
use
of
a
surface
area
endpoint,
that
is
below
the
range
the
panel
suggested.

As
you
know,
(
see
Nader's
email)
that
the
agency
is
already
deferring
the
decision
on
the
endpoint
for
the
wipe
test
until
the
final
written
report.
Base
on
the
phone
calls
and
emails
from
you,
I
believe
that
the
AD
has
not
heard
the
message
for
the
SAP
(
that
chrome
on
the
surface
of
wood
is
not
an
issue),
and
will
continue
to
support,
some
version
of
the
ADTC
value,
which
was
thoroughly
dismissed
by
the
panel.
Jack,
I
am
sure
that
the
AD
has
better
things
to
do
than
try
to
support
an
endpoint,
that
was
drafted
by
staff,
who
in
your
own
words
were
not
very
knowledgeable
in
the
subject
matter,
that
is
not
supported
by
the
science
or
the
advisory
panel
EPA
brought
together
to
review
the
endpoint
and
the
methods
that
were
used
to
generate
the
endpoint.
­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­
From:
Housenger.
Jack@
epamail.
epa.
gov
[
mailto:
Housenger.
Jack@
epamail.
epa.
gov]
Sent:
Thursday,
May
13,
2004
4:
39
PM
To:
Dennis
Morgan
Cc:
Jim
Aidala;
Kipp
Coddington;
Lynn
Bergeson;
Dorsey.
Larry@
epamail.
epa.
gov;
Lewis.
Paul@
epamail.
epa.
gov;
Leighton.
Timothy@
epamail.
epa.
gov
Subject:
RE:
May
7
Voice
mail
Denny,
I
don't
think
that
is
necessary
they
should
be
writting
the
final
report
as
clearly
as
they
can
Paul
and
Larry
will
ensure
that
they
do
so
Jack
E.
Housenger,
Associate
Director
Antimicrobials
Division
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
703­
308­
8163
Visit:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
pesticides/

Dennis
Morgan
<
dennis_
morgan@
ms
To:
Jack
Housenger/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
n.
com>
cc:
Lynn
Bergeson
<
lbergeson@
lawbc.
com>,
Jim
Aidala
<
jaidala@
lawbc.
com>,
Kipp
Coddington
05/
12/
2004
11:
17
<
KCoddington@
alston.
com>
AM
Subject:
RE:
May
7
Voice
mail
Jack;
I
realize
that
you
and
your
team
are
busy,
and
I
do
appreciate
your
responses.
Would
it
help
if
I
forwarded
this
e­
mail
thread
to
Dr.
Menne,
Dr.
Foulds
and
Dr.
Pleus
so
they
can
be
aware
of
the
confusion
and
hopefully
address
these
issues
in
the
written
report?

Denny
­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­
From:
Housenger.
Jack@
epamail.
epa.
gov
[
mailto:
Housenger.
Jack@
epamail.
epa.
gov]
Sent:
Wednesday,
May
12,
2004
4:
36
AM
To:
Dennis
Morgan
Cc:
Susy
Hazen;
Jim
Aidala;
Kipp
Coddington;
Lynn
Bergeson;
Jones.
Jim@
epamail.
epa.
gov;
Sanders.
Frank@
epamail.
epa.
gov;
Chen.
Jonathan@
epamail.
epa.
gov;
McMahon.
Tim@
epamail.
epa.
gov;
Cook.
Norm@
epamail.
epa.
gov;
Leighton.
Timothy@
epamail.
epa.
gov;
Dang.
Winston@
epamail.
epa.
gov
Subject:
Re:
May
7
Voice
mail
Denny,
I
didn't
want
you
to
think
I
was
not
going
to
respond
to
your
email.
We
were
offsite
yesterday
at
an
all
day
retreat.
First
let
me
say
that
I
think
we
were
very
happy
to
get
the
guidance
that
we
got
from
the
SAP
and
to
also
to
get
it
in
real
time.
Having
said
this,
what
the
SAP
actually
said
specifically
won't
be
certain
until
the
final
report
comes
out
which
is
what
I
was
attempting
to
say
in
my
voice
mail
to
you.
Although
we
have
a
good
idea,
I
think
you
said
it
best
in
your
email
that
perhaps
we
heard
something
different
because
of
our
differing
involvements.
The
final
report
will
have
recommendations
that
will
be
put
onto
paper
and
give
us
clear
guidance
as
well
as
justifications.
We
typically
take
the
panel's
recommendations
and
then
decide
what
our
position
is.
As
Lynn
points
out,
we
are
under
no
legal
obligation
to
accept
the
recommendations,
however,
as
we
talked
about
earlier,
these
are
the
experts
that
we
assembled
to
give
us
guidance
and
we
would
approach
this
with
that
in
mind.
Until
we
get
their
report
in
writing;
however,
I
don't
feel
comfortable
saying
definitively
that
a
certain
value
with
all
the
uncertainty
factors
accounted
for
is
where
the
Agency
is
going
to
end
up
and
having
you
conduct
a
study
based
on
that
level.
I'd
be
happy
to
discuss
this
with
you
further
if
you'd
like
to.

Jack
E.
Housenger,
Associate
Director
Antimicrobials
Division
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
703­
308­
8163
Visit:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
pesticides/

Dennis
Morgan
<
dennis_
morgan@
ms
To:
Jack
Housenger
<
housenger.
jack@
epamail.
epa.
gov>
n.
com>
cc:
Lynn
Bergeson
<
lbergeson@
lawbc.
com>,
Susy
Hazen
<
hazen.
susan@
epamail.
epa.
gov>,
Jim
Aidala
05/
10/
2004
11:
45
<
jaidala@
lawbc.
com>,
Kipp
Coddington
AM
<
KCoddington@
alston.
com>
Subject:
May
7
Voice
mail
Jack;
Thanks
for
leaving
the
voice
mail
on
my
cell,
Friday
at
5:
00
p.
m.
EDT.
I
was
in
the
air
between
Baltimore
and
Denver.
Lynn
had
told
me
after
our
March
3
meeting
that
the
EPA
was
not
under
any
legal
requirement
to
follow
the
recommendations
of
the
SAP.
You
and
I
had
already
discussed
that
issue
in
a
previous
phone
call
and
I
recall
you
saying
that
it
would
be
very
difficult
for
the
agency
not
to
follow
the
recommendations
the
SAP.
I
would
like
to
remind
you
that
it
was
your
management
that
called
for
this
SAP
to
see
if
they
could
get
a
conclusive
answer
to
the
dermal
sensitization
issue
regarding
our
ACC
application.
I
understand
what
you
believe
you
heard
regarding
the
uncertainty
factor
less
than
one.
Perhaps
because
of
my
involvement
with
the
development
of
our
presentation
I
heard
something
different
than
you
did.
I
heard
that
for
dermal
sensitization
the
test
vehicle
has
to
match
the
exposure
vehicle
or
there
should
be
use
of
uncertainty
factors
from
less
than
one
to
a
value
greater
than
one.
Some
examples,
that
I
heard
the
panel
mention
were
LLNA
test
vehicle
or
DMSO
when
the
exposure
is
via
water
or
human
sweat
then
a
value
less
than
one
should
be
used
by
the
EPA
because
DMSO
is
a
strong
skin
penetrant
when
compared
to
water
or
human
sweat.
A
converse
would
be
if
a
wood
preservative
were
applied
in
DMSO
and
the
test
vehicle
for
the
LLNA
was
1
%
L92
then
based
on
the
data
presented
the
UF
should
be
at
least
2
or
greater.
For
patch
testing,
Dr.
Menne
reported
in
the
meeting
that
occluded
patch
testing
was
a
much
more
severe
testing
environment
than
the
open
exposure
expected
from
treated
wood.
There
are
several
reports
in
the
literature
that
support
this
position.
The
SAP
recommended
an
UF
of
0.1
in
this
case
because
of
the
large
body
of
evidence
in
the
literature
that
Dr.
Menne
and
Dr.
Foulds
were
aware
of
that
show
at
least
a
10
fold
difference
in
dose
between
occluded
and
open
testing
for
the
same
hapten
including
hexavalent
chromium.

I
would
submit
to
you
that
based
on
our
Jan.
28
meeting
and
again
on
Jim
Jones
comments
on
Mar.
3,
in
that
the
agency
is
concerned
about
causing
induction
in
the
general
population
and
wants
to
know
about
the
impact
on
the
sensitive
population
that
the
range
of
endpoints
given
by
the
SAP
(
0.3
to
0.09
ug/
cm2)
is
below
the
levels
that
would
be
protective
of
the
general
population
for
the
prevention
of
induction.
I
am
concern
that
the
EPA
did
not
like
what
the
heard
last
week,
and
is
now
preparing
to
ignore
the
recommendations
of
the
SAP,
because
the
SAP
did
not
agree
with
the
EPA's
position
prior
to
the
SAP.
Dennis
Morgan
Forest
Products
Research
Laboratory
LLC
Tel:
541­
484­
9477
Fax:
541­
484­
5881
Mob:
541­
954­
6849
