they are a ways away from a proposal that would go through this SBREFA
process and would eventually appear as a proposed rule.  Susan?

		MS. RANDOLPH:  What I heard Dr. Michaels say was that he wanted
information about the injury tracking and incentive surveillance systems
and how that information would feed into the hazard identification
assessment the companies do when they look at that same data, that it
would help with hazard control, you know, and prevention, that the
companies would look at it that way, but that when OSHA looks at that
data, they may be looking at that for enforcement and tracking and
whatever they're going to use that for.  But the injury and illness
surveillance would definitely fit into the I2P2, as Peter was saying.
But it was just with a different set of eyes and purpose.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Yeah, I think you're right.  I think that captures
it well.  Joe.

		MR. VAN HOUTEN:  Mike asked the question about how this project and
these two questions fit together, or two areas fit together.  I think
that the project on an injury tracking and surveillance program is that
deep dive that I was talking about earlier this morning, and I think
it's part of focus area No. 1, which is looking at what is the strategic
direction for OSHA.  How do we advise on complex issues?  And this is a
complex issue that we can address.  So I do see them connecting.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  Agreement, disagreement with that?  And we
could put that in that first bucket, and then come up with some specific
areas that we would gather information on for the next meeting.  Where
does that leave us with regard to the second bucket?  How can the
agencies more effectively draw attention to the nation's needs in
workplace safety now?

		MS. MURRAY:  If we are going to stick with looking at data systems,
then in the second bucket, I think there are a number of things that can
be there, including some of these data links that we could ask NIOSH for
some information on for support they've given to certain states for
reporting mortality, et cetera, et cetera.  We can look at certainly the
issue of linkages to systems outside of the two agencies, like the
compensation system.  And as I keep mentioning it, I obviously would
clearly like to have some discussion around health information exchanges
and to what extent and health and safety specifically, not public health
in general, but how could health and safety leverage these new
electronic exchanges that are coming up to advance worker's health and
safety generally.

		So we could -- you know, if we're going to pick that data element up
for the next meeting, that's certainly something that second bucket
could flesh out.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  It occurs to me that that may be the right way to
go.  It occurs to me there may be another possibility here, which links
back to the Gulf oil discussions.  When I think Dr. Howard was talking
to us yesterday, he was talking about the frustration with the way that
OSHA and NIOSH are in the annex rather than having -- than being
triggered into action automatically when there are these national
emergencies.  And that might be something that we could look at because
this deals with the issue of where workplace safety and health fits in
the hierarchy of concerns that we have when there is an emergency.  So
we could gather a little bit more information on how the national
program works, what it means to be annexed.  And we might be able to
give some advice to the agencies about efforts that they could undertake
to come out from that kind of blanket.  Bill?

		MR. BORWENGEN:  Yeah.  It's really -- I think it's a major issue, and
we would also benefit from hearing from somebody like Chip Hughes, who
runs the worker trainer program at NIESH.  You know, those are the folks
that have been doing a lot of training for the Gulf workers, and they
were involved in 9/11.  And the fact that this annex is -- they have to
rely on other agencies before it gets activated has definitely been a
problem when it comes to guarding workers, you know, protecting workers'
safety and health from the get-go.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Does it continue to make sense to the group that we
think about proceeding with these two broad groupings, and that we put
these specific things into them?  Or following Dr. Michaels' discussion,
does that become less appropriate?

		MR. BORWENGEN:  I mean, the other way to put it, which is I thought --
I thought this is what I heard Peter say originally, was that we would
deal with these reporting issues as a full group, and then, you know, we
just have these other two subgroups.  That's what I was -- but maybe I
didn't hear you say that.  I mean, that's another way to cut it, right?

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  There are clearly a variety of ways we can do this,
and at some point we're going to make a choice.  I hope it can be -- the
less arbitrary the choice is, the better off we are.

		MR. BORWENGEN:  Because he also said he wanted our counsel on the
whole issue of fatigue as well.  He did say, you know, we can use your
assistance on the issue of this petition from the medical residents,
which is actually one of our locals.

		MS. RANDOLPH:  But that fits in with that broader issue about the
complex issues.  And so that group could continue in the future,
depending on what those issues are.  It could be for other workgroups
even beyond the ones that we're talking about now.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  What I'm kind of inclined to do is to establish one
additional workgroup now that would deal with that range of questions
regarding the information data systems and their use, and any incentives
built into them.  And that would sort of be what we've been talking
about as group number one.  How do we deploy resources?  What is the
strategic direction that the agencies use?  And that we use the -- and
that we set up that additional workgroup now, and that we use the other
existing group, the one on Gulf oil, to probe a little bit more about
the priority attention given to workplace safety and health, and that we
specifically get some more information about how this annex system works
and how it might be changed so that we might be able to provide some
advice to the agencies about what to do next.

		MR. BUCHAN:  I fully agree with that.  But I would like to be taken
off the Gulf oil thing and put on the surveillance subcommittee.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Well, our own deployment, that's a secondary
question because we haven't yet decided, you know, on what groupings
we're going to have.

		MALE VOICE:  We're going to have to deploy our resources.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  I know that I'm bouncing around a bit.  So help --

		MR. BORWENGEN:  You didn't finish your thought.  Did you finish your
thought?

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  I pretty much finished the thought, that we would
set up one additional group now, and it would be basically group one
that we had talked about earlier.  So it would be set up to have a broad
focus on how the agencies are using information and matching their
resources to needs, and that specifically -- and over a period of time,
that group may address any number of things, but specifically for the
next period of time, we address the issues we were talking about with
Dr. Michaels, and we have the four specific questions that we can dig
into.  That would be the new group we would set up.

		We have an existing second group on Gulf oil.  We would leave it
intact right now.  We wouldn't change its charter.  But we would pose
some questions for the agencies about the way that the annex process
works so that when we understand that a little bit better, we might be
able to provide advice about elevating the profile that safety and
health gets in national emergencies.  And then we'll also be asking for
lessons learned about the Gulf.  And when we come back at the next
meeting, we can decide whether or not that group should stay intact as
group number two, whether or not its charter should be broadened, or
whether or not we should disband it and do something else.

		Does that strategy seem to work?

		MS. MURRAY:  I think any type will work.  You know, I don't think
there is any one magic way to do it.  I think -- and I think we can do
some of this before we leave also.  You know, for me, the critical thing
is whatever happens, it's the shaping of the next agenda.  So we have
time before the end of the day to I guess break up in groups, if we want
to do that, or discuss as a whole, and try to shape -- you know, discuss
some of those details.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  So if there is no objection -- and again,
Sarah, I'm attentive to the fact that there are certain things that are
going to need either a vote or consensus on the record for, but I don't
think we're at that point yet.  If there is no objection, I want to
proceed to work on defining two groups with some specific tasks and
specific requests that we make to the agencies.

		One group would be the broad group that would address the questions
that we had talked about with Dr. Michaels.  The second would be the
existing subgroup, and that one would frame some questions to the
agencies about the annex process as well as the lessons learned.  Okay.
Where are we on time?  We're at 11:30.

		MR. BORWENGEN:  So just to clarify, the first workgroup was on using
information and deploying resources to meet needs?

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Yeah.

		MR. BORWENGEN:  And the second workgroup is this Gulf oil that has
been morphed into looking at the annex process.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Well, that's part of the Gulf oil.  It would fit in
with the existing charter.

		MR. BORWENGEN:  Yeah.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  It would fit in with the existing charter.

		MR. BORWENGEN:  So where does the injury reporting go?

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  The first group.  I can be more specific.

		MR. BORWENGEN:  Okay.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  The nature of the first group -- and we have to come
up with some words to give it a name and to write a charter for it.  The
nature of the first group is how the agencies can do better at using
information to make decisions about deploying their resources in a way
that better matches the efforts to the needs.  That's broadly stated.

		More specifically, for the next period of time, that group will
address the following four questions.  Number one, how are our current
systems of workplace injury, illness, exposure, data recordkeeping, and
surveillance designed?  Secondly, what are these systems currently being
used for?  how are they being used?  Thirdly, what incentives and
disincentives to accurate data and information are in existence?  And
fourthly, how can these systems be improved and changed in order to
better accomplish our ability to find and fix hazards and protect worker
rights as written into the OSHA act?

		MR. BUCHAN:  I would like to add one thing.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Before you do that --

		MR. BUCHAN:  Okay.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Did what I just say capture what the discussion has
been?

		MR. BUCHAN:  Absolutely.

		MALE VOICE:  Yes.

		FEMALE VOICE:  I think so.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay, Roy.

		MR. BUCHAN:  I was just wanting to say that we might have new ways of
helping them target where they should be.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Oh, yeah, absolutely.  I think that fits into the
fourth question.

		MR. BUCHAN:  Okay.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  How can the systems be better -- how can they be
improved and changed in order to be more effective.  Bill.

		MR. BORWENGEN:  So I want to make sure -- again, it goes back to
yesterday -- that this group captures what I think it should -- again,
we're going to look at the current info, the BLS data.  We're going to
look at where inspections are occurring, where OSHA is doing
inspections, to see where injuries and illnesses are occurring in this
country OSHA is deploying adequate inspection resources in those areas.
And then we want to really look at OSHA's overall budget, you know, and
look at their line items to figure out if there is the proper mix, if
OSHA is spending the proper amount of money in our opinion on
inspections, on, you know, employer consultation, on education, on, you
know, standards setting, in line of what we think should be the agency's
priorities.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  I think the answer to that in the general sense is
yes, but with the very strong caution that Linda gave us, that if we
allow ourselves to become a study group, we will study these issues and
quarrel over the data forever.  And we can't allow ourselves to do that.
 So some of this stuff, while it may be appropriately under this
umbrella, is stuff we're going to dig into simultaneously.  We're going
to dive into the deep water, as Joe suggested, but not too deep.  It's a
matter of balance.

		MR. BORWENGEN:  Right.  And just to get to the nub of the issue here,
is that, you know, there is 13.7 million healthcare workers, right, 4.7
million hospital workers.  There are hospitals in this country that OSHA
has never inspected, you know.   And so, to me, that's the nub of the
issue.  That's like, you know, are we really deploying resources when
OSHA drives by a hospital that employs 2,000 workers to go inspect the
chemical plant down the road that they've inspected 50 times already
where 20 workers work.  You know, is that the best of the agency's
resources?

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  I think that the healthcare issues that I know we're
all concerned about, and you're specifically concerned about, are
inevitably going to surface as part of the information that we're going
to be looking at and the deliberations we're making.  But having said, I
want to be clear that I'm not proposing that the subgroup be a group
devoted to figuring out what we're doing and what we should be doing on
healthcare.

		MR. BORWENGEN:  I agree.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.

		MR. BORWENGEN:  Because I think there is other -- there is a number of
other sectors that have been historically ignored by OSHA, where the BLS
data is screaming at you that they need OSHA's attention.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Roy a number of times has raised agriculture in that
context, and he's right about that.

		MR. BORWENGEN:  Well, his problem is that there are 10 or less
employees in most of the places.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  Is this beginning to feel right to people?
Okay.  Let's see what time it is.  It's quarter to 12:00.  I think that
I want to break for lunch now, but it would probably make sense to give
some assignments during lunch, at least to a couple of people.  One of
the assignments has to do with the Gulf oil workgroup.  The next thing
that we're going to do with that group is pose a couple of questions to
the agencies for them to get back to us on.  Yes.

		MS. POUGET:  I'll do it.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  You'll do that.  Who will work -- and I'll try to
characterize a little bit more specifically what we're looking for.  But
who would like to work with Denise on this during lunch?  It's not going
to be a hard project.

		MS. POUGET:  Or we can, like, write down our own things and then come
together.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  You can do that, right.

		MS. POUGET:  Because I've got like six things already that I wanted to
kind of think about, and maybe make them --

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  The two that I have in mind are the
following.  We want to ask for OSHA and NIOSH to provide some more
information on how the annex process within the national -- what is it
called, the national what plan?   National what?

		MALE VOICE:  Response.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  National response, okay.  So how the annex process
and the national response plan works right now so that we can at some
point at the next meeting provide some advice to the agencies about what
they might do to raise the profile of worker safety and health during
national emergencies.  So that's number one.

		Number two would be posing to OSHA and NIOSH a couple of areas of
special interest to us when they go through the lessons learned process.
 And I think Peg had some more -- may have some more specific ideas
about what that bullet list ought to be.  Does that help, Denise?

		MS. POUGET:  And I actually -- I started -- they're all my bullets
here, but, I mean, I can get with Peg when we come back, and we can, you
know, massage it.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  The second assignment for lunch would be to
come up with a more sharply articulated name for this other group that
we would then bucket those specific questions under.  And I'll be happy
to work on that if there is anybody who wants to sit down and help with
that.

		MR. BUCHAN:  I will.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.

		MR. BUCHAN:  Something other than bucket two.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Yeah.  Actually, it's bucket one.

		(Laughter)

		MALE VOICE:  This is what we're going to do before we die.

		MALE VOICE:  I've got to tell you about a great movie.  I've got to
tell you --

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  But with regard to language, that in my own agency,
which is a state OSHA program, I am on a mission to get rid of the term
"targeting" because it is very frustrating to me and to our inspectors
when they go into a workplace and they say, we're here to do an
inspection, and the employer says, why are you picking on me, and the
answer is, well, you're one of our targets.

		(Laughter)

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  It does not establish that good working
relationship.

		MR. BORWENGEN:  Because you set us in your log.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Now, we're kind of -- you know, it's going to be --

		MALE VOICE:  You're special.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  There you go.

		MR. BORWENGEN:  Is it different than emergency preparedness response?
Is that not a good name for that committee?

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  No, no.  We're leaving that committee by itself.
We're not renaming it.  We're not changing its charter.  We just have a
couple of things that we're going to pursue under that umbrella.  Bucket
number one is the one that is dealing with the data systems and the
matching of resources to needs.

		MR. BORWENGEN:  Well, again, it's called using info and deploying
resources to meet needs.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Well, you're now part of that little subgroup at
lunch that will work on that title, Bill.  Anything else?

		MALE VOICE:  Maybe bucket number two.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Anything else before we break for lunch?

		MR. BORWENGEN:  Strategic deployment of scarce resources.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Yes.

		THE REPORTER: If the speakers could speak one at a time, I'd
appreciate it.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  If we could speak one at a time, just --

		THE REPORTER:  Thank you.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Thanks for bringing that to our attention.  We will
try to discipline ourselves.

		MS. MURRAY:  We were just telling bad jokes.

		(Laughter)

		MS. MURRAY:  Don't write that down.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  We're doing it again.  Let's break for lunch.  Let's
be back here at 1 o'clock.

		(Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., a luncheon recess was taken.)

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

A F T E R N O O N  S E S S I O N

(1:05 p.m.)

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  We will reconvene the afternoon session.  Okay.  We
had two workgroups assigned to do a little bit of preparation during
lunch, and I understand that Denise and Peg have done their work on the
issues related to next steps regarding Gulf oil and emergencies.

		MS. POUGET:  We have sort of a rough group of questions, about six or
so, because we were asked to present questions, are they looking into
these things.  And Peg is going to chime in on some.  We were wondering,
are they looking at what point were the workers briefed about the need
for proper PPE, what the dangers of the work they were about to do
entailed, and when was their physical abilities assessed for such work.

		Another thing is we were wondering if they're looking at if workers
received the health assessment, at what point did that occur.  Was there
an onsite safety officer assigned to each one of the work areas, and was
there worker accountability also enforced?  Meaning that we did
accountability checks on welfare.  We looked at things like
rehabilitation.  Did we look at, you know, making sure that we checked
in with those workers on a regular basis.

		As far as training, what type of training did the workers receive?
Are we looking into that, and when did they receive that training?  And
a lot of what Peg and I discussed was the timing of a lot of these
issues.

		As far as injury reporting, what was the method utilized to report
injuries, and was it consistent, in other words, from work area to work
area, so that we can compare apples to apples.  Were the workers advised
-- we know we heard of heat related type and people being targeted, but
were they advised of the most frequently reported types of injuries and
illnesses, and advised on how to prevent them?  And also, is OSHA
looking at the tracking of the workers in some type of database so that
we can look at the long-term effects, if any, from the exposure to the
petroleum?  Because I know one of the things that they told us was that
they were unaware of what -- they didn't have any data on long-term
exposure to petroleum like that.

		And, Peg, did you have anything else to --

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Yeah, just a couple of other things.  I think one of
the key issues here -- and I don't know how we -- I'm trying to
formulate this.  As Denise was saying, it was sort of the timing.  There
is always the sense that we were several weeks in responding here.  And
so to learn from that as to what needs to be done so that the next time
around here, that there is actually more of a template in place, you
know.

		For example, there were questions that went on for the entire spill as
to what level of personal protective equipment.  And as Dr. Howard said,
OSHA and NIOSH did end up coming out with the joint guidance.  Look at
the data on it.  It was July 26th, right?  This is three months into the
spill.  So I think one of the questions just on timing is to -- were
these decisions -- is there a better way.  These things that were
learned from this experience that can be now put in place and be on the
shelf to help prepare and be ready for the next disaster.

		The other piece related to training was how was the decision made
about not just what was the level of training, but how was the decision
made about what level of training, and was it adequate?  So was the
training actually adequate for what turned out to be the exposures.  And
if not, then what should it be? Because again -- so that we don't the
next time around say, oh, we'll start fresh.  Well, that's what we did
Exxon Valdez.  That's what we did the Gulf Coast.  Maybe it wasn't
enough, but we don't really know what is enough.

		The other issue has to do with OSHA's role.  OSHA had, you know,
dozens of people.  I don't know exactly how many people were deployed
onsite.  They took on a role of being monitors, you know, finding and
then ordering the fixing of hazards.  They don't do that anywhere.  I
mean, that's not what OSHA does.  OSHA inspects, they investigate.  It's
not like they move into workplaces and become the eyes and ears on
safety and health for months.

		And so I think the question to look at here is again the level of
resources, and is that the appropriate role for the agency to play in an
emergency.  Is that the role that they should play?  Is that the best
model or is there some other way to, you know, require the company to
bring in people, to pay them to provide that oversight and monitoring
role?

		So that would be another thing that I would say to, you know, look at.
 And this was a little bit of a different situation because here you did
have the government, the Coast Guard, and BP in joint -- in a unified
command, so they were running the overall response of it.  So it took on
the flavor all the way down the road, all the way down the line in all
the different activities.  But I think that's a reasonable question to
ask for again lessons learned in the future.  Is that the model and is
that the role OSHA should be playing in these disasters, and what does
that take away from with respect to their other activities.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  I assume you would broaden that to what role did
OSHA and NIOSH play.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  NIOSH play, yes, yes.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Linda.

		MS. MURRAY:  I wanted to add the lessons learned about surge capacity.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  About?

		MS. MURRAY:  Surge capacity, which is always a major problem.  But
with these major national disasters -- you know, I don't know, I'm
predicting that everything -- many other things came to halt in the
agency.  I don't know for sure, but -- so and whether -- and I think
NIOSH has more commissioned core people by accident almost than OSHA, I
think.  But to explore other methods of addressing the problems of surge
capacity, a reserve group of health and safety professionals at the
state level or in the private sector that could be called quickly when
necessary.  So some thinking about surge capacity and how to address
that problem in the future.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  See, the other issue here is it's not just the surge
capacity.  It's how do you -- the implications of dealing with long-term
disasters.  And so this is something --

		MS. MURRAY:  Right.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  -- went on, you know, for months and months and
months.  And so the conditions were always changing, so it was a dynamic
situation.  And I would ask them to look specifically as how was this
different.  Was this different than, let's say, from the World Trade
Center, where you had an event, you had continuing exposures, and it was
somewhat dynamic because of all the cleanup and continued work that went
on.  But here you had a situation where, you know, the oil was moving
and was continuing.  So I would ask them to look at were there
differences in issues that came up here versus other disasters where,
you know, the event has been more of a singular event, and not as
prolonged.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  I think that the way that we want to take
this list or some reworking of it -- we want to take this list, and I
think this is the context we want to put it in.  I think that we will
want to direct a -- want to give OSHA and NIOSH a recommendation.  And
the nature of that recommendation would be a statement that NACOSH is
aware that OSHA and NIOSH are examining lessons learned from the Gulf
oil recovery efforts.  We advise the agencies to consider at least the
following questions as they go through that exercise, and we would list
these questions.  Then we would say that we hope to receive some
feedback on this enough in advance of our next meeting so we can discuss
it with you.  Does that capture it?

		MS. RANDOLPH:  I think it's also tying it into the lessons learned
that they're also reviewing.  You want to make sure that these points
are addressed as well as the other lessons learned.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  So how do we refine this list?  I mean, we've
got a good start.  And some of this stuff I wrote down, but not all of
it.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Well, maybe we can -- do we have a break coming up
here?

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  We can do this is in a few minutes.  It may require
that we break down into a couple of smaller groups and can work on that.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Right.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  And what we're aiming at is having this done by
2:45, which is the time at which I think Frank and -- David Michaels is
going to be joining you, Frank.  Okay.  So that's where we're going with
that one.  With regard to the other task, we worked on some language
that would establish a second workgroup.  And let me tell you -- let me
read to you some proposed language here and see if we're on the right
track.

		NACOSH has established a subgroup to advise OSHA and NIOSH on the
design and use of recordkeeping and surveillance systems to guide policy
decisions and the deployment of resources.  Among the questions the
subgroup will address are the following:  How are the current workplace
injury, illness, and exposure data recordkeeping and surveillance
systems designed?  How are these systems currently being used?  What are
the current incentives and disincentives that affect the accuracy and
completeness of reporting and recordkeeping?  And how can these systems
and policies  be improved and changed in order to better accomplish the
ability to find and fix hazards and to ensure worker protection?

		So are we close?  Are we not close?  Do you want me to read that
again?  I just typed it up two minutes ago, so there wasn't any
opportunity to do anything with it.  So this would be a subgroup to
advise OSHA and NIOSH on the design and use of recordkeeping and
surveillance systems to guide policy decisions and the deployment of
resources.

		Among the questions the subgroup will address are the following, and
there are four of them.  One, how are the current workplace injury,
illness, and exposure data recordkeeping and surveillance systems
designed?  Two, how are these systems currently being used?  Three, what
are the current incentives and disincentives that affect the accuracy
and completeness of reporting and recordkeeping?  And four, how can
these systems and policies be improve and changed in order to better
accomplish the ability to find and fix hazards and to ensure worker
protection?  Bill?

		MR. BORWENGEN:  So the second bullet I think I would say -- read the
second bullet.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  The second is, how are these systems currently being
used?

		MR. BORWENGEN:  Being used to prioritize and allocate resources,
prioritize agency -- you know --

		MR. BUCHAN:  After used, Bill, you're going to put in the language.

		MR. BORWENGEN:  Yeah.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  No.  I understand that.  But he was saying that, and
Peg was shaking her head.

		MR. BORWENGEN:  Well, again, it's like how are we using the BLS data
to figure out -- are we going after the most hazardous workplaces where
the most workers work?

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Well, I open to something that would add a clause
after this.  It would be how are these systems currently being used to
do something.  I'm not sure what the right something is to put in there.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  I would just say that that's not their only use,
right?  I mean, it's not just to set priorities.  It's actually carry
out the programs.  And maybe what you want to say is how are they being
used, including how are they being used to identify priorities and --

		MR. BORWENGEN:  Allocate resources.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Allocate resources.  I mean, if you want to highlight
that --

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  I don't know.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  No.  But he was saying that the use was for that
purpose.  The use is for lots of purposes.  And so that's just one of
the purposes, rather than getting into a whole --

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Well, what is wrong with just saying how are these
systems currently being used?

		MS. SEMINARIO:  I think that's fine.

		MR. BORWENGEN:  Well, again, to me the crux of the whole committee is
to review -- you know, again I go back to yesterday's comment, which may
or may not be accurate, that OSHA, you know, conducts 85 -- I know this
was true, you know, ten years ago, that 85 percent of their inspections
are conducted in manufacturing and construction, and there is only
11-1/2 million manufacturing workers in this country, and there is 13.7
million healthcare workers.  And there is a lot of other service sectors
and other sectors of the economy where OSHA is largely irrelevant, and
they become irrelevant every day OSHA doesn't adapt itself to address
the hazards in the growing sectors of the economy.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  But I think you're jumping a couple of steps ahead
in formulating conclusions that indeed we may reach, but not until we've
asked these kinds of questions and done some review, taking into account
Linda's caution about not spending the next two years on that.

		MR. VAN HOUTEN:  Michael?

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Yeah, Joe.

		MR. VAN HOUTEN:  I don't think you need to add anything to the end of
that question because I think it narrows the focus.  One thought I had
was what if we reversed the questions and said number four first, to say
the purpose of this is to answer this question, and in order to do that,
we are going to look at how are the systems currently being used, what
are they being used for.

		MS. MURRAY:  Oh, okay.  That might help.  That might help what you
want to do because it puts the emphasis back on that.

		MR. BORWENGEN:  Yeah.  I'd like to do a -- without becoming -- again
doing a massive study, I'd like to look at the line items to figure out
where the money is going, and what are using it for, and what sectors of
the economy are being addressed, based on what we know about BLS injury
and illness rates.

		MR. BUCHAN:  More than BLS, though.

		MS. RANDOLPH:  But it's also broader than just BLS.  It's also NIOSH
data or Sensor, or it could be CFOI.  I mean, it could be a wide variety
of deaths.  So it isn't just OSHA death.

		MALE VOICE:  I agree.

		MR. BUCHAN:  It could also be exposure information from NIOSH and
OSHA.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  Two things that are on the table
simultaneously.  Let's deal with one at a time.  The suggestion that Joe
made was that we switch the order around a little bit to state that -- I
guess the way it would work is this.  We'd say the subgroup is to advise
OSHA and NIOSH on designing the use of these systems to guide policy
decisions and deployment of resources.

		The committee will -- or the subgroup will, what, examine the --

		MR. VAN HOUTEN:  What you might want to say is the key question being
--

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  The key question.

		MR. VAN HOUTEN:  -- addressed by this subgroup is -- state numbers,
state --

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Yeah.  The key question will be how can systems and
policies be improved and changed --

		MR. VAN HOUTEN:  Exactly.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  -- in order to blah, blah, blah.

		MR. VAN HOUTEN:  In order to do that, we will examine this, this, and
this.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  Does that sound agreeable?

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Right.  And I think the workgroup should consider
whether or not explicitly as part of the things you're going to examine
is how resources, the current allocation of resources, is put to address
--

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Wait.  Hang on for one second, Peg.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Whether the current allocation of resources is
appropriate to address hazards, injuries, and illnesses, right?

		MS. RANDOLPH:  Exposures.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Yeah, I said hazards.  That's fine.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  So in order to accomplish this -- I'm going to come
back in one second, Peg.

		(Pause)

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  So here is the way it now reads, and then
I'll come back to what Peg was saying.  It now says, the subgroup will
advise OSHA and NIOSH on the design and use of recordkeeping and
surveillance systems to guide policy decisions and deployment of
resources.  Oh, I left something out.  The key question that the
subgroup will examine is how can the existing systems be improved and
changed in order to better accomplish the ability to find and fix
hazards, and to ensure worker protection.  In order to accomplish this,
the first issues the subgroup will examine are the following.  And then
we have, how are the current systems designed?  How are they being used?
 And what are the incentives and disincentives.  And then I was typing
while you were talking, Peg.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  I just said is the current deployment of resources
appropriate, yeah, or appropriate to address the --

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  To address the --

		MS. MURRAY:  Reality to the American economy.  How about that?  Or the
realities of the workforce, or something like that.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  I was just thinking about is it appropriate to address
the --

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Well, the distribution or --

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Distribution of the injuries, illnesses, and
exposures.

		MR. BORWENGEN:  Is the allocation of resources commensurate with the
distribution of resources or something.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Yeah, okay.

		MALE VOICE:  The word "optimal" comes to mind.

		MR. BORWENGEN:  Right.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  But let me just say here, I think there are other
issues than just how many issues are occurring in a workforce.  That's
part of the decisionmaking, right?  And so I don't think it's just a
question of how many or whatever.  I mean, that's an important piece of
it, but it's certainly not, you know, the only piece.  So I wouldn't
just say that it's --

		MR. BORWENGEN:  But it has been ignored for a long time.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  I'm not saying it hasn't been ignored.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Here, okay.  All right.  Try this version.  This is
getting better.  This will be a subgroup to advise OSHA and NIOSH on the
design and use of recordkeeping and surveillance systems to guide policy
decisions and the deployment of resources.  The key question for this
workgroup will be how can these systems and policies be improved and
changed in order to better accomplish the ability to find and fix
hazards and to ensure worker protection.  In order to accomplish this,
the first issues the subgroup will examine are the following:  One, how
are the current workplace injury, illness, and exposure data
recordkeeping and surveillance systems designed?  Two, how are these
systems currently being used?  Three, what are the current incentives
and disincentives that affect the accuracy and completeness of reporting
and recordkeeping.  And four, is the current deployment of resources and
the design of policies appropriate to address the distribution of
injuries, illnesses, and exposure?

		MALE VOICE:  That sounds good.

		MALE VOICE:  Sounds good.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  It does sound good?

		MALE VOICE:  I like that last sentence.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  Well, then we're going to have to use this to
direct some requests for information from the agencies before the end of
the day.  But let's -- I will accept a motion for the group to establish
this subgroup.

		MR. BUCHAN:  I so move.

		MS. MURRAY:  Second.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  We have a second?  Okay.  Is there any discussion?

		(No audible response.)

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  Can I see a show of hands for those who are
in favor of setting up this subgroup?

		(Show of hands)

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  That is a unanimous decision.  Great.  Let's
do two things.  I think what we need to do now is to break into two
smaller groups, one of which will come up with the bullet list of
questions regarding the Gulf oil follow-up.  And then we'll come back
and listen to that, and if we're doing well, I'll entertain a motion to
convey those questions to OSHA and NIOSH.  And I think the other group
will come up with some specific questions for information from OSHA to
NIOSH to help this other subgroup get started.

		Does that make sense?  Was that coherent?  Okay.  So certainly Denise
and Peg, and anybody else want to work with Denise and Peg to come up
with the Gulf oil questions?

		MR. KNOWLES:  Yes.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  You'll help, Emory?

		MR. KNOWLES:  I'll help on that.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  And who wants to sit down and come up with
the requests for information regarding first subgroup?  Okay.  So,
Sarah, can we do this, just break into two groups for discussion?

		MS. SHORTALL:  You're going to go off the record.  OSHA's policy is
that all subgroup meetings are open to the public.  So any member of the
public can attend either/or.  And the only thing the subgroups are
authorized to do is to report back to the parent group for any further
action.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  So let's take -- it's 1:30.  Let's take about
a half an hour for that.  Peg?

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Question.  Is there any possibility of getting access
to a computer?

		MS. MURRAY:  For what, do you mean?

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Just to type up the list.

		(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  Let's go back on the record.  The committee
is back in session.  And while we're waiting for the electronics to
arrive, let's at least begin housekeeping, the discussion about the next
meeting and whether or not we should have it before the end of the
calendar year.  My sense is from body language that people would like to
attempt to schedule another meeting before the end of the calendar year,
understanding that it may be very difficult.

		So I think what I'm going to do is ask each of you to send to Deborah
your calendars for November and December so that we can see what is
possible, and she will also have to check with both OSHA and NIOSH
senior staff to see what is possible for the agencies.  So let's try to
do that.  I think that we will lose some momentum if we don't have
another meeting relatively soon.

		Now, Joe, I think you were interested in the question of what the
workgroups can do between meetings.  And part of that, we have to ask
Sarah what is permissible and what is not.

		MS. SHORTALL:  The workgroups certainly can meet between the full
meetings.  However, it is OSHA's policy that workgroups be open to the
public.  So if you meet by phone, which I think is most likely the way
you would be doing it, you need to let OSHA know so we could make a room
available here for people to be able to gather and participate by phone,
particularly if we have so many people that are interested that we need
to do that because we don't have enough lines available to get people
plugged in.

		I think what would be the best to do is for OSHA to take its sign-in
sheets for the most recent meetings and send e-mails to those people
informing them of the workgroup meetings so that they can attend.  There
is no requirement for us to do anything in the Federal Register, but in
order for the public to participate, they have to be aware of the
meetings.  So that's one way we could do it.

		We could also potentially put a notice on the web page, but that may
take so long that that time has passed.  So sometimes doing things a
little bit more informally is what works.  Usually what we'd say in that
type of thing is we're going to hold a workgroup meeting.  This is how
the public can participate.  If you have anyone else you know of that
would like to participate, this is how they can, too, so we get the
information.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  For those who have been on the committee in the past
and have been part of subgroups, how have they worked and how have they
not worked?  I know, Peg, you've done some.  Emory has done some of
this.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  I don't recall the workgroups ever being open to the
public.  I don't know when this -- I mean before, as far as -- so we
would -- when there was a committee meeting, we would have a lot of time
for a workgroup, when there was a two-day committee meeting.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  During the committee meetings.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  During the committee meeting.  And then a couple of
times, when we had extensive work to do, the workgroup came in in
between because we had to meet with agency staff from different
agencies, and maybe we worked for a day.  So when we really got into it,
we would have sometimes separate meetings here of the workgroup in D.C.,
and then other times we would have discussions on the phone to circulate
documents in advance.  But that was how it worked.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  What is your recollection, Emory?

		MR. KNOWLES:  Yeah.  I don't recall ours being open to the public.  I
certainly don't recall anyone from the public participating between the
meetings.  We did have a number of telephone conference calls with the
members of the workgroup and then OSHA staff participating in those
telephone conference calls.  We didn't have separate meetings outside
the actual scheduled NACOSH meetings.  But the second day of the meeting
was dedicated to the workgroup sitting down and working for three or
four hours at a time.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  And that was kind of a dilemma with our Gulf workgroup
because we didn't know when -- Deborah and I were talking.  We didn't
know how to make -- we would have to make it public because I wanted to
have a meeting over the summer, and it just didn't pan out because of
that fact, because I asked her how, you know.

		MS. CRAWFORD:  I mean, there is a difference between what maybe past
practice had been and what is actually required under FACA and other GSA
regs.  And to tell you the truth, GSA is becoming much stricter in terms
of monitoring the agencies to see that they comply.  In NACOSH's own
regulations, if we were to be most following the regulations, 1912.813
actually for subcommittees requires that we put a notice in the Federal
Register and we transcript them.

		So that's why we've been calling them subgroup, something to get --
you know, so we can do something a little bit less formal.  But it has
been OSHA's interest to allow the public to participate in those
subgroup meetings, although they do not have the right to vote.  The
only ones who'd have the right to vote in those subcommittee meetings or
subgroup meetings would be the members of NACOSH.

		MR. KNOWLES:  Yeah.  I just don't recall any announcement to the
public.  It may have been made.  I just don't recall.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Well, we will certainly have an interest in having
at least one of the subgroups meet before the entire committee comes
together again.  Maybe the way to do that is to schedule a two-day
meeting, the first day of which is for subgroups, and maybe conference
calls with some access to the public is another way to do it, although
that's quite awkward.  But we're certainly not going to violate the
requirements of the law.

		MS. CRAWFORD:  The other advisory committees do exactly as Michael has
suggested.  FACOSH, MACOSH, and ACOSH, they set up their workgroup
meetings the two days prior to the meeting, and then they have their
meeting.  That allows them time to sift through things and put together
the reports that they would like to give to the parent committee.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  I mean, that's certainly a possibility.  So we'll
have to examine that.  I think the thing to do right now is to provide
the -- for everybody to provide their November, December calendars to
Deborah as soon as possible, and then we'll work on -- we'll look to see
what is possible for either one or a two-day meeting, with or without
subgroups, and we'll examine with staff here what the options for less
formal phone conversations in between meetings.

		So everybody got -- yeah, Joe.

		MR. VAN HOUTEN:  Just one more question regarding meetings.  Would it
be possible to schedule them a year in advance so that we can put them
on calendars, and this way schedule around for business purposes?

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  I think that's a great idea, if we can possibly do
it.  Let me work with staff to see what we can do.

		MR. VAN HOUTEN:  Yeah.  Because I know three months out, my calendar
is booked, and it's tough to move things around.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  I'm frankly amazed that so many people could make it
to the first two meetings with relatively short notice.  Does everybody
have a copy of the proposal from the Gulf oil?  If everybody would take
just two minutes and read through this, and then we can discuss it.
These would be questions we would give to the agencies at the end of
this meeting.

		(Pause)

		MS. MURRAY:  Mike?

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Yes.

		MS. MURRAY:  I apologize I had to be away.  I hate to go back.  I know
you all discussed this.  But this assignment of sending availability for
November or December sounds to me like a -- I can't even contemplate
such a thought, unless we have a -- and even if we use a meeting wizard,
which I would suggest is more efficient than this thing, everybody send
in their dates.  The meeting wizard has to be solved quickly because,
you know, my calendar fills up with these meeting wizard holes.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  I understand.  I think that most people -- we had a
brief discussion while you were out of the room, and most people agree
that if it were possible, it would be advisable to have another meeting
before the end of the calendar year in order to maintain and build
momentum.  It may turn out that it is impossible to do it.  But I think
we would be remiss in not at least checking.

		MS. MURRAY:  Well, if we have time before we leave, without doing harm
to the agenda, perhaps we could like at least narrow down some time.
You know, again, I just can't imagine going through my calendar and
holding all the present -- I don't how I'm going to be there.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay, okay.

		MALE VOICE:  Especially since most of us are here, right?  I mean,
we're missing a couple people, right?

		MS. MURRAY:  Yeah.  So maybe we could, you know, old fashioned, pen
and pencil -- you know, for example, we're going to knock out
Thanksgiving week, right?  So we might as well say that now.  You know,
let's -- we don't have to do it this second.  But, you know, if we have
time.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Let's try to do that before the end of the meeting.
What is a good way to do that?  We can -- we don't have a monthly
template that we can pass around.

		FEMALE VOICE:  We know December 6th through the 8th are off the table
because that's the ACOSH meeting.

		MS. MURRAY:  You know, maybe we could quickly printout the monthly
template and knock off some dates, and then go from there, because, you
know, November and December are busy months anyway.  There are not that
many work days.

		FEMALE VOICE:  I carry a calendar.

		MS. MURRAY:  Do you want us to scribble on it?

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  What are you suggesting, Peg?

		MS. SEMINARIO:  I was just saying that if you want to just go through
dates, I mean, just which ones would we just knock out.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  We'll do that.  But I want to get through
this substance first.  Okay.  So we're looking at the page where the
seven items from the Gulf regarding the Gulf oil spill response.
Everybody should have had a chance to look at this.  Reactions,
suggestions, comments?  Does anybody have a problem with anything that
is on this list, thinks that it should be -- I'm not finished reading
because we were discussing meetings.

		(Pause)

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  I do have -- there is one other thing that we had
talked about that doesn't appear on this list.  I'm wondering if you
discussed this in small group.  And that was asking OSHA and NIOSH to
provide more information about the annex provisions in the national
response plan.  Could that be simply added as another question?

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Yes, yes.  And what specifically do we want to --

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  I'm not sure how to -- since I'm not familiar with
it, I don't know exactly how to frame the question.  But I think we need
information about how the annex procedures work and what options replace
it.

		FEMALE VOICE:  Or what triggers the plan?

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Right.  Well, in this --

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Frank?

		MR. HEARL:  Do you want me to come up?

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Yeah, come on up.  Excuse me, a question.

		THE REPORTER:  If I could I just remind you to speak one at a time.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  One at a time.  Thank you.  Just keep hounding us
about that if you will, and maybe we'll get it together.  Okay, Frank.

		MR. HEARL:  Yeah.  I think the -- I'm not an expert on this particular
thing myself, but I believe it's triggered an invocation of the Stafford
Act and a declaration of an emergency, which didn't actually happen in
the Gulf oil spill situation anyway.  But I think once that happens,
then the different emergency support functions of the ESF stick into
gear.  There is one, the ESF-8 for public health that NIOSH is usually
involved in to some extent.  Then the worker safety and health annex is
a part of that plan.  So that's with administrative procedures, and
that's how it gets activated with the different secretaries in charge of
the different parts of the plan.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Just let the record show that Mr. Frank Hearl is at
the table now, and David Michaels has arrived.  David, we did not start
the discussion with you and Frank without you.  We asked Frank a
specific question that drew him up to the table.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Perhaps what we could say here is then in keeping in
line with these questions here, was -- based on their experience and
lessons learned in the Gulf response, do the agencies have
recommendations for modifications that should be made in the national
response plan to give workers safety and health issues, to make them a
higher priority or --

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  I didn't write that.  You were writing that
down.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  I am writing.  That's what I'm just saying.  Based on
the experience in the Gulf oil spill response, do the agencies have
recommendations and any modifications that should be made in the
national response plan to, well, improve worker safety and health, or to
improve --

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Let's do this.  We're in the ballpark.  Let's find
out from OSHA and NIOSH representatives what might be most helpful to
them as a way to frame this.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Okay.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  So let's skip -- go back a step.  And now we're in
the 2:45 session, although it's slightly premature.  If we had a few
more minutes, we'd be a little bit more coherent in what we're going to
present to you.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  But they're on time.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  But we'll do.  Frank Hearl, we'll do fine.  We've
got two documents that we are considering providing to the agencies at
the end of this meeting, and we wanted to share them with you and talk
to you about them before we make them formal.  The first is the one we
were just talking about, which would be a communication on behalf --
from the committee, but under the umbrella of the workgroup on the Gulf
oil recovery efforts.  So it would be some further action with regard to
Gulf oil recovery.  And as a committee, we took note of the fact that
the agencies are developing -- are going through a lessons learned
activity.  And we thought that it would be especially useful if the
lessons learned activity addressed the questions that are on this page.

		These are the questions that are of most to the committee members.
And so we wanted to go through those with you and get your off-the-cuff
reaction, and also see what your suggestions are about how we can make
the most useful -- provide the most -- draft the most useful question
regarding the annex provisions of the national response plan.  So if you
want to take a couple of seconds to look at this.  It's a little bit
long, but maybe it's useful to read these things out loud.  Does that
help or not?

		FEMALE VOICE:  Well, this will put this in the record.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Well, if I read it out loud, it goes in the record.
It goes in the transcript.  When we reach some consensus on what version
of this will go to the agencies, then that will go in the record as
well.  It may be different than what I'm about to read.

		But the workgroup -- and I think it should actually NACOSH.  This is
going to be a recommendation from NACOSH.  So it would say, NACOSH
commends OSHA and NIOSH for their efforts to protect workers during the
Gulf oil spill response.  In order to learn from this experience and be
better prepared to respond to emergencies or disasters in the future, we
recommend that as part of the agency's lesson learned and evaluation
activities that they examine the following questions and issues.

		First, what processes and information were used to make decisions
about the appropriate personal protective equipment and level of
training to perform the work.  If these decisions deviated from
requirements under existing standards, what criteria were used to make
these decisions?

		Two, were health assessments of all workers conducted, and if so,
when?  What type of assessment, and by whom?  We obviously have a little
bit of grammar.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Right.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Who was responsible for overseeing safety and health
of the response personnel?  Did the incident commander appoint a safety
officer, and if so, who was that person?

		Four, what was OSHA's role in ensuring safety and health in the oil
spill response?  How many staff were deployed in the response?  Is the
intensive oversight role that OSHA played, which is different from the
agency's normal investigation and inspection role, necessary or
appropriate.  Did the agency consider recruiting or relying upon other
resources, for example, FEMA task forces, state agency personnel, SGEs,
which I think is special government employees?

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Yes.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  And safety and health volunteers to perform or
assist in this activity.  Does the agency have ideas or recommendations
for enhancing surge capacity for addressing safety and health issues in
future disasters or emergencies?

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Michael, just one thing I would just -- in looking at
this now and just reading it, I would propose a modification to this.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  To the whole document or --

		MS. SEMINARIO:  No.  Just to this particular point.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  To number four.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Yeah.  Do you want to just go through the whole thing
first?

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Let me just read the whole thing and --

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Right, fine, okay.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  -- then come back to whatever people want to talk
about.  Number five, what were the challenges presented by dealing with
a prolonged, dynamic incident, and were there differences in the issues
presented in this disaster response and the response of the World Trade
Center.

		Six, what steps will OSHA and NIOSH be taking based on experience and
lessons learned to better prepare for the next disaster.  Is it possible
to develop more formalized plans regarding the provision of appropriate
training, personnel protective equipment control measures, injury and
illness reporting and surveillance systems, in order to be better
prepared for the next disaster.

		Seven, does NIOSH have specific plans to recommend or to conduct any
follow-up surveillance on these workers similar to the follow-up
surveillance and monitoring conducted at the World Trade Center.  And
then there would be a number eight, which Peg was drafting a few minutes
ago regarding the national response plan.

		A general question.  Do people have an overall comfort level with this
list?  Anybody have significant reservations about it?

		MR. VAN HOUTEN:  I have one point.  I would be interested in knowing
or a critique of OSHA's relationship with BP.  It doesn't seem to be --
there is no discussion about the relationship with the company
throughout the disaster.  What were the lessons learned?  You know, as
someone who was in industry, I'd like to know what went wrong and what
--

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  So it would be what were the lessons learned about
the relationship --

		(Simultaneous discussion)

		MR. VAN HOUTEN:  -- and the company, private companies involved.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Yeah, one person at a time.

		MR. VAN HOUTEN:  Sorry.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Say that again?

		MR. VAN HOUTEN:  No.  I interrupted.  I'm interested in knowing the
lessons learned regarding the relationship between the federal agencies,
or all government agencies, not just the federal agencies, and the
private companies involved throughout the emergency response.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  As it pertains to safety and health.

		MR. VAN HOUTEN:  Right, yes.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Are you interested in just between the agencies and
the private companies?  Do we also want to ask them lessons learned
about the coordination amongst the agencies, given that we have those
whole issues of jurisdictional -- different jurisdictions?  I think that
is probably another appropriate question.

		MR. VAN HOUTEN:  I would agree, yeah.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Right.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Before we -- I'm reluctant to add too much more
because this is getting to big already, and before we go any further,
I'd like to get initial reactions from OSHA and NIOSH.  Peg?

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Just the other issue was just a small amendment to
number four, that we should be asking about what was OSHA's role/NIOSH's
role in ensuring the safety and health, and that did OSHA or NIOSH
consider recruiting or relying upon other resources.  And where it says
"did the agency," I would say OSHA or NIOSH.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Oh, did NIOSH or OSHA.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  And then the last sentence, does OSHA and NIOSH have
ideas or recommendations.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  I'd like to get initial reactions.  Are these
the kinds of questions that you feel will be helpful and appropriate?

		DR. MICHAELS:  Yes.  I mean, as you know, OSHA staff right now is
involved in that sort of lessons learned exercise.  And as a result of
that, we will have materials that we will put out -- I'm not sure in
what form yet -- to answer some of these questions.  But we're certainly
happy to have some of the others.  I think actually now we are beginning
to -- the crisis is beginning to resolve because I'm told that the well
will actually be permanently capped over the weekend, symbolically a
wonderful moment, it's appropriate to go and think about these issues,
and we're certainly happy to answer them.

		I have a little wordsmithing, and I think Frank does as well that he
might suggest.  But generally, I think it's fine.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.

		MR. HEARL:  Yeah.  I think these are good questions and so forth.  I
think my concern actually in looking at the way they're phrased is in
the context of our addressing these in an after-action report.  Some of
them are just like eliciting information about what did you do.  And it
seems like if the questions were worded more along the lines of was the
information that was available to you at the time good enough.  And the
things that you sought to use, what would have been helpful to have as
additional information that might have been available, and then, you
know, the lessons that we learned from here, the kinds of information,
does that engender the idea that we should put together some kind of a
package that would be available, so that that information might be
available the next time there is a major response.

		So I think kind of crafting it that way rather than, you know, just
what happened and who was assigned, and, you know, maybe the question of
did that work, you know, was it really successful in terms of overseeing
health and safety.  Did the incident commander appoint a safety officer?
 If so, who was that person?  And then did that work as a system.  And
then I think a lot of the things that might be of interest in an
after-action report also might be how did we interact with the unified
area command.  How did we interact with the OMB and the White House in
getting information cleared?  Because a lot of what we did was
information development and making those things available.  And how did
the review process work for it?  Did it improve the product?  Did it
maintain a timeliness?  You know, were the documents that we produced
effective?  And we had evidence of that.

		I think those kind of -- I think crafting it a little bit in that
sense might be more useful.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  We should be able to do that.  We're
beginning to have a race with the clock, and that's the limiting factor
here.

		MR. HEARL:  You may be able to phrase that in terms of the global
overall thing, and then these are the points underneath of that.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.

		MR. HEARL:  I think the global questions might be, you know, was what
you had when you were faced with a decision enough to be able to make a
good policy decision.  What would have been helpful to have in addition
to that?  And then, you know, are those things -- are there ways of
building those into -- for future use, and then apply to these
questions.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Did anybody write quickly?  No.  Okay.  My sense is
that with regard to both the committee as well as the two agencies,
we're in the right ballpark here.  Let's set this aside for a second
because I want to assess -- I want to allocate the rest of the time so
we get everything done that we need to.  So set this aside for a second
and take a look at this second sheet.

		We have decided as a committee to establish a second workgroup, a
second subgroup.  And this document describes what that subgroup would
address, and also indicates some of the requests that we would make now
to OSHA and NIOSH for information that will help get that group
launched.  So let me read this.  I think it -- I may be wrong, but I
think it does help to hear these things out loud at least once.

		The NACOSH is establishing a subgroup to advise OSHA and NIOSH on the
design and use of recordkeeping and surveillance systems to guide policy
decisions and the deployment of resources.  The key question for this
workgroup would be how can these systems and policies be improved and
changed in order to better accomplish the ability to find and fix
hazards and to ensure worker protection.  In order to accomplish this,
the first issues the subgroup will examine are the following:

		First, how are the current workplace injury, illness, and exposure
data recordkeeping and surveillance systems designed?  Two, how are
these systems currently being used?  Three, what are the current
incentives and disincentives that affect the accuracy and completeness
of reporting and recordkeeping?  Four, is the current deployment of
resources and the design of policies appropriate to the address the
distribution of injuries, illnesses, and exposures.  And five, how might
the recordkeeping and reporting elements if injury and illness
prevention plans be best designed to encourage accurate and complete
reporting of injuries, illnesses, hazardous exposures, and close calls.

		And then NACOSH would request from OSHA and NIOSH the following:  a
copy of the report from OSHA stakeholder meetings on recordkeeping
modernization; two summary reports that are available regarding where
people work where injuries and illnesses are reported, and where OSHA
and NIOSH conduct research, enforcement, and regulation; three, the
current OSHA and NIOSH strategic plans; and the fourthly, the committee
would request that OSHA and NIOSH put together a small panel that would
be available next NACOSH meeting to discuss the above questions with the
committee.

		So reaction first from committee members.  Not all of you have seen
all of this.  Is there anything that is particularly troublesome or
doesn't seem quite right.  Emory?

		MR. KNOWLES:  Not troublesome, but you used the term "close calls,"
and within the profession, it's near-miss incidents.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Yeah.

		MR. KNOWLES:  I would suggest changing that.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  I understand.  I use the term "close calls."  I take
it it's more accurate.  I've never understood grammatically among other
things what near-miss means.

		MR. KNOWLES:  Right, right.  It's a double negative.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Right.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  While the language, as Mike Seymour said, that was
proposed at one of the stakeholder meetings, which I thought was
appropriate, was near hits.  It is more appropriate than a near miss.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Roy.

		MR. BUCHAN:  Roy Buchan.  I mentioned this during the subgroup
meeting, but I don't think we really want to ask them for the design of
the recordkeeping and surveillance systems.  These things are very
sophisticated, very detailed, and it would be very difficult for us as a
group to really assess the design of these programs.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Well, I want to make it clear that we're not
requesting anything about the -- we're not asking OSHA or NIOSH for
documents describing the full design of these.  What we've indicated is
this is one of the areas that we're interested in and that we want to
explore.  But I want to be very careful about -- we discussed this in
the little subgroup discussion we had.  I want to be very careful that
we don't inadvertently ask for a massive data dump that is going to be
too big for us to handle.  So I appreciate the point you're making, Roy?

		Are we okay on close calls?  Is it an issue that needs to be discussed
further?  Are you willing to live with that?

		MR. KNOWLES:  I can certainly live with that.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  Thank you.  Peg?

		MS. SEMINARIO:  I would just suggest another piece of information that
I think is quite helpful, and it should be easy for both OSHA and NIOSH
to provide, is information on their budget.  And I would suggest that if
people want to go and look at this and have it as a resource that the
congressional budget justification is a very good document that goes
into each area of the program and the resources that are deployed.  And
so it's a good resource for the committee to have if you're looking at
both priorities backed with resources.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  So the specific request would be --

		MS. SEMINARIO:  For the copies of the congressional budget
justification, which are online.

		DR. MICHAELS:  That's easily provided.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Just you can give a link, right?

		DR. MICHAELS:  Yeah.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Copies of the --

		MS. SEMINARIO:  And if there is a summary document that you think is a
better document to explain how the resources are deployed in the
different programs for the agencies, that would be, I think, helpful to
give people a sense of what the realities are.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  So the actual language of the communication would be
a request for a copies of the congressional --

		DR. MICHAELS:  Budget justification.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Yeah, budget summary, both budget summary and a copy
of the congressional budget justification, which I think for both
agencies is online.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  So copies of the congressional budget justifications
and budget summaries?

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Yeah.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  For OSHA and NIOSH.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Right.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  We decided to establish a subgroup because we
thought this was a way of addressing the broad questions that you
specifically, David, raised with the committee earlier today, but I
think also addressed a lot of the concerns raised by John Howard
yesterday.  And we think that this is a subgroup whose subject matter
really pays significant attention to both agencies.

		Does it ring true to the two of you?  If we proceed along these lines,
is this going to generate useful advice?

		DR. MICHAELS:  Absolutely.  I would only ask for one slight perhaps
expansion.  In the fifth point in the issues you're examining, you're
looking at how various programs and plans can be best designed to
encourage accurate and complete reporting of injuries and illnesses.
But I would say reporting and investigating.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.

		DR. MICHAELS:  Because you want to go beyond reporting.  And you're
not -- you don't have to talk about how they should be investigated, but
what would encourage the investigation of them.  I think that would be
useful.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.

		MS. SHORTALL:  I have --

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Sarah.

		MS. SHORTALL:  -- one important suggestion, and that is in the part
that gets to the request that you have here, that you indicate that
NACOSH requests that OSHA and NIOSH provide the following to NACOSH.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  Now, Sarah, let me ask you a question.  I
think that the way this worked at the first meeting that we had, the
previous meeting, was that we had documents like this that the committee
had agreed on, but required a little bit of editing without changing the
substance following the meeting, and that we then conveyed an official
document to the agencies.

		MS. SHORTALL:  Yes.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Is that the way we can proceed here as well.

		MS. SHORTALL:  What you want -- what you need to do to make sure that
this reflects what NACOSH --

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Oh, I'm going to do that.

		MS. SHORTALL:  -- is recommending is first vote on it.  And that will
get in the record.  And then the report that you prepare will be
submitted to the -- I mean it will be put in the docket after we receive
it.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Right.  Now, I had not forgotten about that.

		MS. SHORTALL:  Okay.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  We're going to make sure that this -- the things we
do represent the entire committee's desire.  But that will then allow us
to do a little bit of fine tuning after the fact before we submit.

		MS. SHORTALL:  I think what you'd simply do is ask to have the
recommendation approved by NACOSH, as edited.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.

		MS. SHORTALL:  You have to be careful, though.  If you do significant
editing, that could negate the vote.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  I understand.  I'm talking about minor grammar.
Okay.  I think that we're pretty close on the new subgroup and the
document that I just read and we made some changes to.  And let me tell
you what the changes are that I think we discussed.  The first is that
bullet number five, in the second to the last line, where it currently
says, accurate and complete reporting of injuries, it will now, accurate
and complete reporting and investigating of injuries, et cetera, et
cetera.

		Then in the request to OSHA and NIOSH, it will now say, NIOSH [sic]
requests that OSHA and NIOSH provide the following to NACOSH.

		MR. VAN HOUTEN:  Did you say NIOSH requests?

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  I said NIOSH.  I've done that before.  I'll probably
make that mistake again.  I meant to say NACOSH requests that OSHA and
NIOSH provide the following to NACOSH.  And then finally, there would be
a number five in the request list that would say, copies of the
congressional budget justification and budget summaries for OSHA and
NIOSH.

		Oh, and then, right, Deborah points out that in the very first
sentence -- the very first sentence would be amended to say, NACOSH is
establishing a workgroup to advise OSHA and NIOSH.  Okay.  I will
entertain a motion to establish the workgroup as described in this
document and to address the request to the two agencies, and to convey
this to OSHA and NIOSH following the meeting, after we do minor editing
for grammar and clarity.

		MS. RANDOLPH:  So moved.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Is there a second to that motion?

		(No audible response.)

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  It has been seconded.  Is there discussion?  Roy.

		MR. BUCHAN:  I'm still concerned about the word "design."

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  About the word --

		MR. BUCHAN:  Requesting for the design of the surveillance systems.
If we think that's essential, I'll go with it, but we may get more than
we want.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  No.  But you're answering the question.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  I would point out again that we're not requesting
voluminous documents having to do with system design.

		MALE VOICE:  We're not requesting anything until we get down to the
last paragraph.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Again, one person needs to speak at a time.  And so
I think what we're going to have to do to discipline ourselves better --

		MR. BUCHAN:  This is Roy.  I withdraw what I had to say.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Thank you.  In order to preserve the sanity of the
staff who is compiling the transcript here, I would ask now for the rest
of the meeting that if people will please wait to speak and raise hands
so that I can call on you.

		The motion has been made and seconded that we establish this workgroup
as described in this document, and we convey this information to the
agencies following this meeting.  May I have a show of hands in favor?

		(Show of hands)

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  That is unanimous, and we will follow up on this
following the meeting.

		MS. SHORTALL:  I'm sorry.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Sarah.

		MS. SHORTALL:  I have to play my legal role here.  You have
established the workgroup.  Now, the second thing you have to do is make
the formal request to OSHA and NIOSH to provide certain information.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  I believe that the motion we voted on was to
establish the workgroup and to convey the request as articulated in this
document.  So I think we already did that.

		MS. SHORTALL:  I did get that the motion had all this other language
in it.  So this is helpful that now it does have it.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  Now we need to turn our attention back to the
document on the Gulf oil spill response.  And I think we've got time to,
as a group, come up with some language of the sort that Frank was
suggesting, that would make this precise enough so the agencies can
respond adequately.  Is there anybody other than Frank who thinks that
they can craft such language at the beginning rather than revising the
entire document?  Peg?

		MS. SEMINARIO:  What I wrote down from what you said was what
information did the agencies have,, or was it available -- what
information was available to the agencies.  Was it adequate?  I would
add, was it available in a timely manner.  And what information would
you like to have?

		MR. HEARL:  Yeah.  I think I have just something like what would have
helped at the time --

		MS. SEMINARIO:  What would have helped.

		MR. HEARL:  -- to facilitate the kind of decisions we were faced that
might not have been available at that time.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  And this language would appear where?  Before number
one?

		MS. SEMINARIO:  I would put it before number one.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  So, Peg, you're still writing that?  Roy has his
hand up, so let's hear Roy's question or comment, then we'll come back
to Peg.

		MR. BUCHAN:  Roy Buchan.  Frank, I got the impression that you
objected to the way this was written in general, and that you'd like to
see bullets more so than questions.  Am I incorrect in that?

		MR. HEARL:  I think what bothered me about some of the questions, not
necessarily all of them, was that they're getting at a kind of a report
information for the committee rather than -- which is something that you
said you didn't necessarily want, as I was listening to your discussions
over the last few days, whereas what the questions were supposed to be
was to help us to craft our lessons learned evaluation, what kind of
things that we needed to think about in those terms.

		So, you know, I'll say, for -- I mean, number three is kind of right
on point for showing what I mean.  You know, who was responsible for
overseeing safety and health of response personnel.  Did the incident
commander appoint a safety officer, and if so, who was that person.
Well, that's really just information about what happened.  And what I'm
thinking, the questions that would be helpful for us to have to address
-- I mean, I'm making work for us maybe.  But the questions would be,
you know, did we have enough information to make the right decisions on
these questions at that time.  If not, what would have helped us to have
been able to make that decision better?  And then the third aspect is
can we develop -- is there something that we can develop so that if a
future event happens and we get to this particular issue, what would
have facilitated a better decision at that point.

		And so in terms of lessons learned from an after-action, it's more
like that rather than just reporting what did you do, who was appointed,
and, you know.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  I'm wondering if we had a paragraph like that at the
beginning, would it then be useful to follow that paragraph by saying
among the considerations that the agency should -- among the things the
agency should take into account are the following.

		MR. HEARL:  Right.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  And then this list could still be there, but framed
a little bit different.

		MR. HEARL:  I think that would work.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Peg?  Peg and then Linda.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  I think there are two things, and maybe we're trying
to combine two different requests to the agency.  One is in looking
somewhat at the lessons learned.  But the other is an attempt to inform
the committee about some of the things that happened since the committee
didn't meet since the last time, maybe some of its follow-up questions
to what we had yesterday for -- when Debbie Berkowitz and John Howard
were here -- that go to both the questions of what actually happened
here, and was it adequate.  I mean, it's both of those things because --
and that's one of the reasons -- and it's to sort of help you think
about that in terms of the structure of the response.

		It was -- at least from maybe your being on the inside here, but from
the outside, it looked like there was difficulty at getting the safety
and health responsibilities established early on because people had
different, you know, jurisdictions and responsibilities.  And so I think
both in terms of laying out what those were and then also were there
problems, or did it work, or what changes would you make.  Maybe that's
what we want to try to get at so that whatever is done here provides
some, you know, useful information for the next time, both for
internally within the agencies, but also externally because that's part
of the lessons learned as well.

		MR. HEARL:  I think you've captured exactly what my concern was.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Okay.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Linda?

		MS. MURRAY:  Okay.  Well, maybe it's solved.  But I was going to say
we almost are there, it's just that our language is sloppy.  So in that
second paragraph, if you read it, you know, I would interpret that as
saying that you want it, which is, you know, we just want you to
consider these questions.  We could go through and reword every
question, but I would suggest that would be a waste of time.  So I
argue, unless you don't think it's clear, that this second paragraph
says, as you prepare your lessons learned evaluation -- you've had one
meeting.  I'm sure you're going to somehow encapsulate some of that
stuff.  Glance at these seven questions and make sure that they in their
broad sense are addressed.

		So, for example, let me look at number three.  Now, we happen not to
be sure about the answer to number three, and that's probably a
30-second answer.  But what we really are interested in, more so than
what happened in the Gulf oil incident, is a question of, whatever
happened, what should happen in the future in disasters in terms of
people responsible for health and safety.

		So if you all think it's reasonable to excuse our sloppy English, and
if we have to beef up the second paragraph, we're really just asking
these questions to be in the minds of the agencies as you prepare what
you're going to do anyway, which is your lessons learned document, if
that seems reasonable to people.

		Now, I assume that -- for example, again I don't want to know right
now.  But if there was no health and safety officer appointed by the
incident commander, for example, I assume that that will come out in
your lessons learned document.  And if there was one, but they -- it
worked well or it didn't work well, that will also be addressed.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Peter?  David?

		DR. MICHAELS:  Yeah, if I could just comment.  I think that question
three actually goes to the question of what was the relationship between
OSHA and NIOSH, the incident command, and BP.  And you might just want
to expand that because really that's a sub-question of who appointed a
safety officer, who they reported to, how do we relate to them.  And
maybe if you could expand that, it actually would get to the -- give you
the information you wanted, along with other information.

		MS. MURRAY:  Right.

		DR. MICHAELS:  And if I could make two other very brief --

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Please.

		DR. MICHAELS:  I actually think you should talk about training rather
than the level of training.  The content -- there are lots of aspects of
training.

		MS. MURRAY:  What number is that you're talking about?

		DR. MICHAELS:  I'm sorry.  Number one.

		MS. MURRAY:  Number one?  Okay.

		DR. MICHAELS:  You know, you talk about the content of training.  You
talk about the types of training, and the format and things like that
that are really -- the level.  I'm not sure what health assessment
means.

		MS. MURRAY:  I think that meant physical -- people's assessments,
among other things, of people's ability to safely work wherever they --

		DR. MICHAELS:  Yeah.  Well, I guess you may want to define it.  I just
don't know what you're trying to get at here.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Let me suggest something.  We're scheduled to go
until 4:30.  I know Paul has to leave sometime soon.  Anybody else that
has to leave before 4:30?  Okay.  I think that we can accomplish -- this
is what I think we have left to do, and I think we can accomplish it.
We have to fine tune this document.  And I'm going to propose -- and I
think we have time to do this.  I'm going to propose that we take a
10-minute break while two or three of us play with this language and
then come back to the whole group.  I think that's going to be more
efficient than doing it in the group as a whole.  I think we're very
close, and we can do it that way.

		MS. MURRAY:  And we can give you our calendar finally.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  So I'm going to propose that we take a 10-minute
break to do that, and that we then reconvene.  We finish up with this
document, and the recommendation.  We then see if there is additional
discussion that we need just to wrap up this meeting with the two
agencies, any final thoughts from Frank and David or from the committee
to them.  I think that would be a short discussion.  And then there are
a couple of housekeeping items that we need to do.  We need to see who
-- we'll have two subgroups, and I want to make sure that we know who is
going to be on each one.  And it does not necessarily follow that
everybody who is on the Gulf oil workgroup before when it was the only
one now will be on that group.  So we can do that.

		And then we have to have a conversation about the calendar and a
future meeting.  And I think we can do all of that by 4:30?  Does that
sound reasonable?  Okay then.  Who would like to work on the language?
I think that Linda and Peg and Frank are probably the ones who have this
most closely in mind.  So can we take 10 minutes for the three of you to
work on that, and then we'll reconvene?  First of all, Bill, you have a
question or a comment?

		MR. BORWENGEN:  I want to make sure that everybody -- are we supposed
to be mentioning the annex in this language or no?

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Yes.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Yes.

		MR. BORWENGEN:  Okay.  Because that was my other question.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Maybe we should ask Dr. Michaels about that now,
because we were having that discussion when he walked in --

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Go ahead and ask the question.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  -- before we -- and Frank Hearl as well.  And this has
to do with --  you know, based upon your experience in the Gulf Coast
response, and based upon both agencies' experience, do you have a -- are
there any recommendations for modifications that should be made in the
national response plan to improve the response to worker safety and
health issues during disasters?

		DR. MICHAELS:  Well, I mean, that is certainly an issue that we're
looking at, and we'd be eager to have your thoughts on that as well.
So, I mean, you certainly can ask us.  But, I mean, we'd love to see how
your subgroup responds to that.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Yeah.  I think that the sequence here is that we
would ask these questions of you regarding your lessons learned.  When
we then hear from you about the lessons learned, we'll give you -- we
may give you advice about how to follow up.

		DR. MICHAELS:  You're an advisory board.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  We'll take a 10-minute break.  It is now
3:27.  So we'll take a 13-minute break and convene at 20 of.

		(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Did Dr. Michaels have to leave, do we know?

		MR. HEARL:  I believe he said he was coming back.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  He will be coming back?  I think he would approve of
us continuing the discussions.  So can we hear back from the small group
that just met?

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Based upon the input from the committee members and
from the agencies here, we made amendments to the document.  We haven't
had a chance to print them out.  Do you want me just to read through --

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Yes.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  NACOSH commends OSHA and NIOSH for their efforts to
protect workers during the Gulf oil spill response.  In order to learn
from this experience and be better prepared to respond to emergencies or
disasters in the future, we recommend that as part of the agencies'
lessons learned and evaluation activities that they examine the
following questions and issues.  We hope these questions are examined in
their broad context and for possible impact on future emergencies and
disasters.

		Number one, what processes and information were used to make decisions
about the appropriate personnel protective equipment, control measures,
and safety and health training?  If these decisions deviated from
requirements under existing standards, what criteria were used to make
these decisions?

		Number two, how were workers assessed for their ability to work
safety?  What medical assessments might have been useful before
placement of workers, during the emergency, as well as after the
immediate incident?

		Number three, how did the unified area command oversea safety and
health personnel, and how did the coordination with the BP, NIOSH, OSHA,
state, and other agencies occur?  What was the effectiveness of the
coordination, and what should happen in the future?  How can the
national response plan better address worker safety and health safe
issues during future emergencies and disasters?

		Number four, what were OSHA and NIOSH's roles in ensuring safety and
health in the oil spill response?  How many staff were deployed in the
response?  Is the intensive oversight role that OSHA played, which is
different from the agency's normal investigation and inspection role,
necessary or appropriate?  Did the agencies consider recruiting or
relying upon other resources, e.g., FEMA task force, state agency
personnel, SGEs, safety and health volunteers to perform or assist in
this activity?  Do the agencies have ideas or recommendations for
enhancing surge capacity for addressing safety and health in future
disasters or emergencies?

		Number five remains the same as in the draft.  Does number six remain
the same?

		MS. MURRAY:  Well, we didn't change it, or seven.  And seven stayed
the same.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  And seven stayed the same.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  Do people feel the need to have this printed
out and distributed so you can look at it on paper right now, or do
people feel comfortable in continuing the discussion?  Okay.  I'm seeing
enough nods, so I think we can -- people are comfortable.  Are there
specific questions that anybody has regarding what Peg just read?  Are
there any of the changes that she read that you have questions or
concerns about?

		I would entertain a motion then for us as a committee to adopt the
document as Peg Seminario read it, and to communicate it as a
recommendation from NACOSH to OSHA and NIOSH.

		MR. DOOLEY:  So moved.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  It is so moved.  Is it seconded?

		MS. POUGET:  Seconded.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Is there discussion about it?  Yes, Susan.

		MS. RANDOLPH:  Just like we had in the other document, are there any
requests that we want from either agency outside of the lessons learned
report?

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  What do people feel about that?

		MS. RANDOLPH:  Or should that report be -- request for that report be
included in the document, like we did with the first one, as a formal
request?

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  That's true.  As I think about it, the -- I'll hold
my sentence and see what Joe has to say.

		MR. VAN HOUTEN:  I think you requested it yesterday as part of the
report out from NIOSH and OSHA, that when the lessons learned report was
available, that it be provided to NACOSH.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  I may have said that, but I don't think that we
actually adopted that as a formal request to the agencies, which I think
is required.  And this document simply says -- as it is written right
now, it simply says we'd like to be sure that OSHA and NIOSH look into
these issues as part of the lessons learned.  But it doesn't have that
sentence in it that says, and we would like you to provide us the
following.

		So is there a final sentence we could add that would make a specific
request?

		MS. SEMINARIO:  NACOSH requests that OSHA and NIOSH provide copies of
their -- are you calling them lessons learned or --

		(Pause)

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Lessons learned evaluations, right?

		FEMALE VOICE:  Or report.

		(Pause)

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Response?

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  Please read what you have.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  I said, NACOSH requests that OSHA and NIOSH provide
copies of their lessons learned evaluation of the Gulf Coast oil spill
response as soon as they are available.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  I think that to be precise, I would entertain
a motion to amend the previous motion.

		MR. KNOWLES:  So moved.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  So moved.  Seconded?

		MS. SHORTALL:  Second.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Second.  Discussion?  And the motion is to -- I'm
not --

		MS. SHORTALL:  Amend the main motion to add the following.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  So the motion is to amend the main motion to be a --
the main motion -- if we vote on this amendment, the main motion will be
amended to communicate the document as Peg just read it to the two
agencies.  And the motion has been --

		MS. SHORTALL:  No, no.  The motion would be amend the document, and
then you'll vote on the whole document.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  Thank you.  So may I have hands on the motion
to amend the main document as just read?  All in favor?

		(Show of hands)

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Any opposed?  The motion is carried unanimously.
Now we can vote on the main motion, which is to convey the document as
amended to OSHA and NIOSH.  Any further discussion about that?

		(No audible response.)

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  All in favor, hands.

		(Show of hands)

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  No opposed.  The motion is carried unanimously, and
we will prepare the document and convey it to the two agencies following
the meeting.  Thank you.

		Okay.  That concludes the main business of this meeting of NACOSH.  We
have a couple of housekeeping items to attend to.  But before doing
that, I want to see if there are any final comments from either Frank
Hearl or David Michaels, or if any of the committee members have final
comments or questions for them.  Frank or David?

		DR. MICHAELS:  This is David.  I'm greatly looking forward to working
with both of these subgroups, and I appreciate your help on these
things.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  Anything else that we'd like to convey to Dr.
Michaels or Frank Hearl?  Bill.

		MR. BORWENGEN:  Bill Borwengen.  So we're the parent organization,
obviously, that petitioned to OSHA to look at the committee of interns
and residents hours of work question.  And I know that you had asked
yesterday also for our advice on that area of worker fatigue, and I
didn't know if you wanted to expound upon that anymore at this point in
time, or if there is anything else that we as a committee could do to
help you evaluate this important issue.

		DR. MICHAELS:  Well, I mean, this is one of the many issues I think we
would love help on.  You know, I know that you have limited resources.
I think there are two subgroups that are very active.  On the other
hand, that's an area that we do have great interest in.  And so if any
of you do feel the energy to discuss this or to get back to us directly,
I would love your thoughts on this.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.

		DR. MICHAELS:  It is certainly not an area that OSHA has spent much
time thinking about in the past.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  Thank you.

		MR. BORWENGEN:  We were impressed by the -- Bill again.  We were
impressed by the press release that talked about how this is an issue,
too, you know, across many industry sectors.

		MS. SHORTALL:  Excuse me.  At this point, we should probably stop
conversation relating to your position other than on NACOSH.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  I think that's consistent with the advice we had
regarding ethics at the beginning of the meeting.  We wear two hats, one
of which is a NACOSH committee member, and the other is the normal hat
we use in the course of our regular business for the agency.  So, Frank,
were you going to say something?

		MR. HEARL:  Yeah.  I was just going to say I want to thank the
committee for the careful deliberations that you had today, and echo
what Dr. Howard said yesterday, that we welcome any advice that you
would like to give us on any of these matters, and look forward to
working with you in the future.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Thank you.  Peg?

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Just a question, and I don't know what mechanisms have
been set up for communication between meetings of just ongoing agency
activity, and whether or not the committee, all the members of the
committee, are essentially on OSHA and NIOSH distribution lists, that
get the regular reports.  I mean, I know that I do as a member of the
labor movement, that we get these communications.  But I would just ask
that the OSHA staff make sure that everyone who is on the committee is
regularly receiving, even if you don't want to, the releases, reports,
because it does give you a sense of what is going on, and I think will
help, then being in a place for the next meeting of having just regular
background.

		So it's not really to create a lot of work, but it's just to make sure
this committee gets plugged into the normal communications of the
agency.

		MR. HEARL:  Yeah.  I hope everyone on the committee has subscribed to
NIOSH's e-news because we do put out a lot of our regular activities
through that e-news e-mail distribution.  If you haven't, please come to
the NIOSH website and subscribe to e-news.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  Is that something we needed to act on?

		MS. SEMINARIO:  No.  And I guess in that, if there are particular
things that are going on that you want to bring to the attention, FYI,
of the committee, that if you'd set up an easy way of just pushing a
button to do it, I think it makes it easier just to keep us informed.
And again, I'm not asking for a lot of extra work.  But I think that
would be helpful as you're thinking between meetings as to what
information would be -- you want to flag to the committee.

		MR. HEARL:  So I think that's something that Deborah and Paul can work
on with other agency staff.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  One final thing for the two of you.  We had
brief discussion among the committee, and there seems to be a shared
view that if it would be possible to have another meeting of NACOSh
before the end of the calendar year, that would be a good thing to do in
order to generate and maintain momentum.  We don't know if it's going to
be logistically possible, given the holiday schedules, et cetera, coming
up.  We're going to be sharing calendars.  But I would ask that the two
agencies think about whether or not it would be possible from your
standpoint to have another meeting before the end of the calendar year,
which probably means the end of November, beginning of December.

		We would also ask you to think about or just share with us any
thoughts or decisions about the frequency of meetings for the next year.
 We're going to need to do some advance planning.  We don't know at this
point with respect to either budget or policy what your tolerance is for
the committee coming into town and having more than one or two meetings
a year.  So we need some guidance from the agencies about that.  And I
don't expect you're going to just give it to us right now, but I'd ask
you to think about that and communicate back with us.

		DR. MICHAELS:  Yes.

		MR. HEARL:  Yes.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  Thank you.  Is there anything else for the
two agencies before we take care of last housekeeping things?  Okay.
Thank you very much.

		(Pause)

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  The next housekeeping thing is who is going to be --
it's the deployment issue.  Who is going to be on the two subgroups?  We
have the Gulf oil response subgroup, and we have the subgroup that we
established today.  So let's see if we go around and ask for preference
if we divide relatively evenly or not.  And if we don't, then we'll go
from there.  But what are we going to call the new workgroup for
convenience?

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Recordkeeping and surveillance?

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  For the purpose of this immediate discussion,
we'll refer this as the recordkeeping subgroup, although it's broader
than that.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  And surveillance.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  So let's start with Susan, and indicate if you'd
like to be on the Gulf oil or the recordkeeping subgroup.

		MS. RANDOLPH:  Recordkeeping, please.

		MALE VOICE:  Yeah, I would say recordkeeping.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Peter?

		MR. DOOLEY:  Recordkeeping.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Oh, I see how this is going.  Okay.  Emory?.

		MR. KNOWLES:  Gulf one.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  And Denise.

		MS. POUGET:  Gulf.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Linda.

		MS. MURRAY:  I don't care.  You can put me wherever you want, to even
it out.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  Roy?

		MR. BUCHAN:  Record.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Bill?

		MR. BORWENGEN:  Recordkeeping.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  And Peg.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Recordkeeping.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Linda, I think you go on the Gulf oil group.

		MS. MURRAY:  Fine.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  And everybody else is -- Emory, Denise, and Linda
are on the Gulf oil group.  Everybody else is on the recordkeeping
group.  And I will try to contribute to both.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  And how are you going to assign the people who aren't
here to even accept --

		MALE VOICE:  I may not be here.  I need to be confirmed again.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Yeah.  We do have -- there may be some changes in
committee membership by the next meeting.  But we'll go with what we
have right now.  So who is -- we're missing two but --

		FEMALE VOICE:  Tim Key I think was on the oil group before.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  We're missing -- well, who are we missing that we
know is remaining on a committee?  We're not certain.  All three of the
people -- two people are missing?

		MS. MURRAY:  And we know that Emory -- not Emory.

		FEMALE VOICE:  Ken Schwarz.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Tim key and Jim Schwarz are the two that are
missing.

		MS. MURRAY:  They are missing.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  And both of them have expiring terms, and we don't
know a that moment if they will be renewed.  So it doesn't make a lot of
sense.

		MS. MURRAY:  So we won't worry about it.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  So Denise, will continue to chair the Gulf
oil group?  And I don't think that -- I mean, you're welcome to have
discussions, you know, between the meetings, as long as we set them up
properly.  But there may not be anything to do until we hear back from
OSHA and NIOSH.

		MS. SHORTALL:  I have a suggestion based on how ACOSH operates.  Once
ACOSH set up the number of workgroups they had, people found they wanted
to be attending everything.  And so when they set up the workgroup
meetings that coincide with the regular meeting, they just made sure
that the meetings were consecutive, and that way people could
participate in every workgroup if they were so interested.  That's a
suggestion to here.

		MS. MURRAY:  They were mentally here.

		MS. SHORTALL:  Pardon me?

		MS. MURRAY:  They were mentally ill.

		(Laughter)

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  That's right.  Right now, we have two workgroups.  I
don't think we have a huge challenge in that regard.  We have -- okay,
one, two, three, four, five, six people who are on the recordkeeping
group.

		MR. BUCHAN:  Michael, I expire in October, so --

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Right.  And we don't know what will happen.

		MR. BUCHAN:  We don't know what will happen.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Among those whose term is not expiring, is there
anybody who would step forward and offer to chair this subgroup?  Joe,
would you be willing to do it?

		MR. VAN HOUTEN:  Sure.  I'll need help, though, with this, just the
logistics of staying on track.  I'd be happy to do what I can.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  And if we need to modify that, appoint a
cochair or get additional help or change chairmanship at some point, we
will.  But we need something to get us moving.  And perhaps you and I
should talk at some point relatively soon to think about what if
anything needs to be done in the interim.  It may be that we wait for
information -- response to the request for information, and we convene a
subcommittee -- a workgroup meeting at the same time that we have the
next full meeting.

		So the interim homework may be for all of us to read documents and
sort of get up to speed on some of these issues as we get response to
our request from the agencies.

		Okay.  The final thing that I have to cover is calendar for possible
next meeting.

		MS. MURRAY:  So let me ask the typical government question.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Yes.

		MS. MURRAY:  Is it possible for us to have a meeting before the end of
the year, financially or what?  You know, whatever is required from --

		MS. CRAWFORD:  I think that we can.

		MS. MURRAY:  Okay.  That's enough, that's enough.  That's good.  I
didn't want to waste time if it wasn't possible.  So okay.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  It would require some administrative stuff with the
Federal Register, et cetera.  Peter?

		MR. DOOLEY:  Just a question.  In terms of the subcommittees --

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Workgroups.

		MR. DOOLEY:  Is there any possibility of having staff people assigned
to assist those committees?  I've heard that that has happened in the
past, right, where committees have had staff, OSHA staff people,
assigned to -- we should just be thinking about that.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  I think that's an excellent question, and I think we
ought to talk about that.  I'll follow up on that with Deborah and Paul.
 Yes, Emory.

		MR. KNOWLES:  Emory Knowles.  Just a comment on that.  When we had the
standing worker task force, there were assigned specialists in that area
from the agency who helped us put together the report and gave us
excellent suggestions and recommendations.  So it has happened
previously.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  I think it's a good idea, and it should be possible,
and we'll follow up with a discussion.  Okay.  So Deborah handed out a
calendar, and I think the request is for everybody to put your name on a
version of this and to cross off dates in November and December that are
absolutely impossible for you.  Is that the best way to do it?

		MS. CRAWFORD:  I think so.

		MS. MURRAY:  I think we should lean closer towards -- if we're
thinking November, towards the very end.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Yeah.

		FEMALE VOICE:  Deborah, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you
said that ACOSH has scheduled the week of the sixth?

		MS. CRAWFORD:  Right, the sixth, seventh, and eighth.  Those dates are
out.

		FEMALE VOICE:  That would take the whole week out.

		FEMALE VOICE:  Of December?

		FEMALE VOICE:  Okay, December, right.

		MALE VOICE:  Sixth to eighth of December?

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  We're all talking at once again, and these guys
can't keep up with it.

		MS. MURRAY:  Maybe it's better if we adjourn.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Stop.  Let's do one at a time.  Raise your hands.
I'll call on you.

		MS. MURRAY:  I move we adjourn, and then talk about the dates.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Can we do that?

		MS. SHORTALL:  You don't have to have that particular thing on the
record.  The only problem is the agency -- the only way you can have a
closed meeting of the agency is to get prior permission.

		MS. MURRAY:  That's not a --

		MS. SHORTALL:  Pardon?

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  The question is this.  Can we adjourn --

		MS. SHORTALL:  You can adjourn.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  -- now and continue discussion about a date for next
meeting.

		MS. SHORTALL:  Yes, so long as we don't remove anyone from the room.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.

		FEMALE VOICE:  Or let new people in.

		MS. SHORTALL:  Pardon?

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  Is there any other business?

		(No audible response.)

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.

		MS. SHORTALL:  The motion to adjourn is not debatable.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  I wasn't going to take a motion.  I was simply going
to adjourn.

		MS. SHORTALL:  She moved that we adjourn.

		MR. SILVERSTEIN:  Okay.  All right.  I'm going to adjourn in a moment.
 But before I do that, I will apologize to these two guys at the table,
and really think hard about how we can discipline ourselves the next
time.  So the meeting is adjourned.

		(Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.)

//

//

//

//

//

	REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

DOCKET NO.:	N/A

CASE TITLE:	NACOSH Meeting

HEARING DATE:	September 15, 2010

LOCATION:		Washington, D.C.

		I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully
and accurately on the tapes and notes reported by me at the hearing in
the above case before the Department of Labor / Occupational Safety and
Health Administration.

				Date:  September 15, 2010

				Chris Mazzochi

				Official Reporter

				Heritage Reporting Corporation

				Suite 600

				1220 L Street, N.W.

				Washington, D.C.  20005-4018

	TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

	HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION

	Official Reporters

	1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 600

	Washington, D.C.  20005-4018

<PHONE_NUMBER>

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
	 page \* arabic 257

	Heritage Reporting Corporation

<PHONE_NUMBER>

	 page \* arabic 462

	Heritage Reporting Corporation

<PHONE_NUMBER>

	 page \* arabic 463

	Heritage Reporting Corporation

<PHONE_NUMBER>

		 page \* arabic 463