OSHA: Proposed Standard For Indoor Air Quality: ETS Hearings, September 21, 1994
OSHA: Proposed Standard For Indoor Air Quality: ETS Hearings, September 21, 1994
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED STANDARD FOR INDOOR AIR QUALITY
Wednesday, September 21, 1994
Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium
Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C.
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 a.m.
BEFORE: HONORABLE JOHN VITTONE
Administrative Law Judge
AGENDA
PAGE
Questioning by Audience:
Ted Grossman 283
Myron Weinberg 320
John Rupp 322
Robert Harrington 372
Ms. Sherman's Answer to Request 381
OSHA Witnesses:
Stanton A. Glantz, PhD 382
Questioning by Audience:
Jim Dinegar 433
Pat Sirridge 441
John Rupp 486
Ted Grossman 559
Michael Lowe 597
Ms. Sherman 626
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
NONE
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT NO. IDENTIFIED RECEIVED
16 428 428
17 488 499
18-22 501 502
A 516
B 530
C 538
D 549
E(1) 551
F(2) 551
P R O C E E D I N G S
9:03 a.m.
JUDGE VITTONE: On the record.
We recessed last night, and we were having some questioning by Mr. Grossman of the OSHA panel. We will resume today, finish up with Mr. Grossman, and then resume again with Mr. Rupp and Mr. Weinberg has also asked, he said he has one additional question he would like to have asked, and I told him I would let him do that after Mr. Rupp. So if you're ready, Mr. Grossman, we will resume.
MR. GROSSMAN: Thank you very much, Your Honor.
When we broke off yesterday we were coming to the question of the Agency's decision to use the Fontham study as the only study in crafting a risk ratio for lung cancer as a result of ETS exposure in the work place.
Could someone articulate to me the reasons why the Brownson study was not used? Mr. Martonik?
MR. MARTONIK: I don't remember us saying that the Fontham study was the only study that had information regarding occupational exposure. I think that...
MR. GROSSMAN: That wasn't the question. The Federal Register says that the risk ratio that was derived is based upon the Fontham study, and the risk ratio for heart disease is based on the Helsing study. I'm asking why the Brownson study, rather than the Fontham study was not used as the basis for calculating the risk ratio.
MR. MARTONIK: Because we thought the Fontham study provided better information regarding the exposure of workers to ETS.
MR. GROSSMAN: On what basis?
MR. MARTONIK: On the basis of reading the studies.
MR. GROSSMAN: On what basis in the studies? What factual basis separated the Fontham study from the Brownson study?
MR. MARTONIK: Dr. Silverstein will answer that.
DR. SILVERSTEIN: I actually want to clarify something in response to the first part of your questioning, which is that while we chose to use the Fontham study for particular calculations, it's not by any means the only study that has risk ratios of the same order of magnitude that we think are important and informative and are useful in our determination. Which...
MR. GROSSMAN: Are you familiar with any other occupational study...
JUDGE VITTONE: Gentlemen, gentlemen. Let's let the answer get completed. Let's let the question get completed. Then we'll deal with it.
Are you finished with your answer, Mr. Silverstein?
DR. SILVERSTEIN: Just about. I was going to say that this was a particularly useful study, but by no means the only useful study. It's part of a larger body of evidence.
MR. GROSSMAN: Could you explain to me why the Brownson study was not used as the principal basis for determining a risk ratio?
MR. MARTONIK: Mrs. Janes will answer that.
MS. JANES: The Fontham study was by far a superior study to the Brownson study. Not only did she validate current tobacco use through cotinine measures, they also looked at diet factors, and they also looked at other potential confounding factors and tried to control for them in both the design of the study and the analysis of the study. It was a multi-center study. Cases from different parts of the country, where Brownson was based in Missouri.
Anyway, we went through our analysis and determined that for risk assessment purposes the Fontham study was by far better.
In the weight of evidence analysis that we used, both the Brownson and the Fontham study both played a part in that, but for the risk assessment, which is what your question relies upon, that is why we chose the...
MR. GROSSMAN: Let's break that down into several parts. You referred to cotinine measurements.
MS. JANES: Yes, sir.
MR. GROSSMAN: That was an alleged test to determine whether there was bias in the determination of who was and who was not a smoker, is that correct?
MS. JANES: Yes, sir. It was...
MR. GROSSMAN: The purpose was to screen out people who were actually smokers as opposed to people who might have been exposed to passive smoke.
MS. JANES: Yes.
MR. GROSSMAN: The cotinine measurements were made on people who had already been determined to have lung cancer, is that correct?
MS. JANES: And on their controls.
MR. GROSSMAN: But as far as people with lung cancer were concerned, the cotinine measurements were made on people who already had lung cancer, is that correct?
MS. JANES: Yes, it is. But it was also...
MR. GROSSMAN: And is it also correct...
JUDGE VITTONE: She was still giving her answer.
MS. JANES: But Fontham looked at both cotinine measures in both their cases and their control group.
MR. GROSSMAN: I'm talking now only about the cases, and you can understand that the questions relate only to the cases.
The cotinine tests were on people who already had lung cancer, and the cotinine tests measure, at best, the last 72 hours of use of cigarettes, is that correct?
MS. JANES: Yes, it is.
MR. GROSSMAN: Could you explain to me and for the record how a test that determines whether people may have smoked cigarettes within the last 72 hours, involving people who are already hospitalized for lung cancer, can determine whether those people have, during the history of their lives, been smokers at any time?
MS. JANES: As you are well aware, most of the epi studies did both, prospective and case control studies, did not even take any kind of [bio] monitoring data and this is the only study on lung cancer.
MR. GROSSMAN: That wasn't my question.
Could you explain for the record how a test that measures cotinine which may measure the use of cigarettes within the last 72 hours, could determine or check whether a person at any time during his or her life time was an active smoker?
MR. MARTONIK: I believe she answered your question. She gave you information that cotinine levels result from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke...
MR. GROSSMAN: You're saying that the answer to the question is it is impossible based upon cotinine tests to make that determination. Is that right?
MS. JANES: It was linked with the questionnaire data that she was asking them as well.
MR. GROSSMAN: There's questionnaire data in all of the tests. I'm asking about the cotinine measures. Could you explain for the record whether a cotinine test administered to a person in the hospital who has already been diagnosed with lung cancer, can test whether that person at any time during his or her life was an active smoker?
MR. MARTONIK: Dr. Silverstein will answer this question.
DR. SILVERSTEIN: The answer is that that information does not allow you to make a direct judgment about past smoking behavior, but when you combine the biological information with the questionnaire information, you can make reasonable presumptions, and this is the best available evidence to make those kinds of judgments from, and we think it was useful and appropriate.
MR. GROSSMAN: All of the tests use the other data, is that correct? All of the studies that you referred to use questionnaires to determine whether people were smokers during their lives?
MS. JANES: IT's either questionnaire or direct personal interviews.
MR. GROSSMAN: And the Brownson study questioned, in many cases, numerous individual to determine the smoking patterns of those under study, is that correct?
MR. MARTONIK: We can't recall that.
MR. GROSSMAN: Let me go on to something else.
In the Fontham study, the researchers who questioned people as to whether they were exposed to ETS, were not blinded, is that correct? They were aware of whether the person involved had already been diagnosed with lung cancer.
MS. JANES: I don't recall that. That may or may not be the case.
MR. GROSSMAN: If it were the case, if the researchers weren't blinded, that would add an element of bias to the study, is that correct?
MS. JANES: It may or it may not.
MR. GROSSMAN: It's something to...
MS. JANES: It may or may not.
MR. GROSSMAN: It's something to take into consideration isn't that the case?
MS. JANES: Of course.
MR. GROSSMAN: Are you familiar with the study by Fontham and Correa and others on the effect of heavy beer and alcohol consumption on lung cancer in non-smokers?
(Pause)
MR. MARTONIK: We're not familiar with that.
MR. GROSSMAN: Fontham and Correa found a risk ratio of 5.3 after controlling for smoking, for people who drink more than four beers per day, for lung cancer, based on a study in Uruguay. Fontham did not control alcohol consumption or beer consumption in her study on occupational exposures to ETS and lung cancer, is that correct?
MR. MARTONIK: You made a statement regarding studies and...
MR. GROSSMAN: We can provide you with the Fontham and Correa...
MR. MARTONIK: If you do that we will look at it and consider it.
MR. GROSSMAN: I made the statement, and then I asked a question. My only question is they did not control for drinking in that study...
MR. MARTONIK: I'm still at a loss to understand how a statement regarding the study regarding individuals exposed to or using alcohol has any relationship to your question...
MR. GROSSMAN: Let me explain it then, I thought it was obvious.
If the individuals with lung cancer were heavy drinkers, and those without were not, the drinking habits alone could account for any difference in incidence of lung cancer among the so-called exposed and unexposed population. I'm asking whether a confounder of drinking was taken into account by Fontham's study considering that Fontham in another published article found a risk ratio of 5.3 for heavy drinking.
MR. MARTONIK: Ms. Janes will answer the question.
MS. JANES: We're not familiar with Fontham's previous paper. However, in the paper in question, she did control for diet.
MR. GROSSMAN: Not for drinking.
MS. JANES: For normal diet.
MR. GROSSMAN: Is there any indication that she controlled for alcohol consumption?
MS. JANES: We'll have to check. We're not sure.
MR. MARTONIK: We can't recall.
MR. GROSSMAN: All right, why don't you check. I think the record is clear that she did not.
MS. JANES: But we will check.
MR. GROSSMAN: Are you familiar with studies on the association between Chinese cooking and abno carcinoma including, for example, the Lam study published in 1985?
MR. MARTONIK: We can't recall that.
MR. GROSSMAN: There are many published studies on the extremely high incidence of abno carcinoma of the lung among Chinese women of first generation in the United States and Japan who have a lifetime of cooking Chinese food. The Lam study that was published in '85 showed a risk ratio of 14.7 for abno carcinoma of the lung.
A large percentage of the population studied in Fontham are first generation Chinese-Americans in San Francisco, is that correct?
MS. JANES: I don't recall what the percentage of the... I know a couple of her study bases were in California.
MR. GROSSMAN: Almost 80 percent of the subjects in her study are in California, isn't that correct?
MR. MARTONIK: You cited the study. How many people were studied in the Lam study?
MR. GROSSMAN: In what study?
MR. MARTONIK: The Lam study that you cited.
MR. GROSSMAN: I don't have the full number who were studied, but the statistical significance ratio, the 95 percent confidence level, was way over one. I think it ran from six to 30 or 40.
MS. JANES: Do you have evidence that indicates, sir, that the cooking habits of Chinese in America are the same as those in China?
MR. GROSSMAN: Yes. First generation. There are many published studies on first generation Chinese.
MR. MARTONIK: We'll look at the report.
MR. GROSSMAN: If you will look at the Fontham study, do you have a copy of the Fontham study with you?
(Pause)
MR. MARTONIK: Yes, we have it.
MR. GROSSMAN: If you'll notice, under race/ethnic group on page 39 of the study, 266 of the respondents were white; 44 were black; 32 were Hispanic; and 67 were Asian; 11 were other. Do you think that's reflective of the United States as a whole?
MR. MARTONIK: We thought it was a good enough indication to use as a study for our risk assessment.
MR. GROSSMAN: I see.
The colon cancer controls, 240 were white versus 35 Asian. The ratio was entirely different by a factor of two between the controls and the studied population. Did you consider that in reviewing the Fontham study?
MR. MARTONIK: As a general matter, we reviewed the study and thought it was appropriate to use...
MR. GROSSMAN: That's not the question. I'm asking whether you reviewed that particular issue.
MR. MARTONIK: We can't recall to what extent we reviewed...
MR. GROSSMAN: Can you recall whether you reviewed it to any extent?
MR. MARTONIK: Yes, clearly we've reviewed it.
MR. GROSSMAN: You reviewed the fact that there was an unusual proportion of Chinese-Americans in the lung cancer group and a lower proportion in the control group?
MR. MARTONIK: My recollection of almost every epidemiology study, there's always some finding or some factor that makes it somewhat difficult to interpret as a broad base...
MR. GROSSMAN: That's not the question. Did you consider that particular issue?
MR. MARTONIK: Yes, we have.
MR. GROSSMAN: And how did you factor that into account? Did you ask Fontham to provide information on the method by which the controls were screened and the individual cases were chosen?
MR. MARTONIK: We read the study. We did not talk to Dr...
MR. GROSSMAN: So you don't know anything about the study except what appears on the face of the study, is that accurate?
MR. MARTONIK: No, we have other information in the record regarding that study. We have descriptions of the study and criticisms of the study by several experts who reviewed the literature....
MR. GROSSMAN: Now...
MR. MARTONIK: EPA is one of those groups.
MR. GROSSMAN: When you say that you have other things in the record, you haven't read everything in the record, have you?
MR. MARTONIK: OSHA is familiar with the record.
MR. GROSSMAN: Yesterday you said you hadn't read PM's fine submissions, you said you hadn't read RJR's submission of a meta analysis of occupational studies which was submitted long before this rulemaking began more than a year ago and was hand delivered. So tell me, which studies have you read that you can point me to that consider the question of the over-representation of Chinese-Americans and Asian-Americans in the study, and particularly in the group that had cancer.
MR. MARTONIK: I think I answered your question. I said we looked at the EPA study.
MR. GROSSMAN: The EPA study is the only other one. You're not suggesting that the EPA study comments upon this issue, are you?
MR. MARTONIK: I'm saying that we considered these issues in terms of all comments that we had available prior to the time we published this proposal.
MR. GROSSMAN: What you're saying is you cannot point me to anything other than the Fontham study on which you considered the issue of over-representation of Asian-Americans in the Fontham study...
MS. SHERMAN: Your Honor, I believe that question's been asked several different times...
MR. GROSSMAN: It has, and it has not been answered.
MS. SHERMAN: ...in several different ways, and answered.
JUDGE VITTONE: What do you have to say Mr. Grossman?
MR. GROSSMAN: I have asked a number of times, but I've not gotten an answer to the simple question of whether they looked at anything other than the Fontham study to consider the issue of over-representation of Asian-Americans in the lung cancer group in the Fontham study.
JUDGE VITTONE: Let's have a clear answer to it this time so we can move on to another issue.
MR. MARTONIK: Yes.
MR. GROSSMAN: Identify every other thing that you looked at to consider that particular issue.
MR. MARTONIK: I'm not prepared to do that right here and now.
MR. GROSSMAN: Identify anything.
MR. MARTONIK: I don't understand what you're asking me.
MR. GROSSMAN: Well, you didn't have the underlying Fontham data, you didn't correspond with Fontham.
DR. SILVERSTEIN: We're not prepared to fully answer your question right now. We will investigate this further and gather the appropriate information, look at it, and reach some judgments about it.
In order to do that, I'd like you to clarify something. You've confused me a little bit. Sometimes you're referring to Chinese, sometimes to Chinese-Americans, and sometimes to Asian-Americans. I'm not sure what you really have in mind. Certainly Asian-Americans are not the same as Chinese.
MR. GROSSMAN: First generation Chinese-Americans are the subject of interest for that.
DR. SILVERSTEIN: But the table, when you referred to a table from the study, you referred to a percentage of Asians. That's not the same as Chinese, is that correct?
MR. GROSSMAN: Asians are not necessarily the same as Chinese. All Chinese are Asians, but not all Asians are Chinese.
DR. SILVERSTEIN: So it's going to be a little bit hard to respond to your question since it's hard to understand exactly what you're getting at. Maybe you can clarify that.
MR. GROSSMAN: Let me clarify it for you, doctor. A risk ratio as determined by you of 1.34 indicates a 34 percent increase in an exposed group versus the unexposed group, is that correct?
DR. SILVERSTEIN: I was simply asking you to distinguish between...
MR. GROSSMAN: Let's...
DR. SILVERSTEIN: ...Asian and Chinese.
MR. GROSSMAN: Let's work this through, since it relates to your question.
A risk ratio of 1.34 indicates a 34 percent increase in the exposed group, is that correct?
DR. SILVERSTEIN: Yes.
MR. GROSSMAN: A risk ratio of 14.7 indicates a 1,470 percent increase, is that correct?
DR. SILVERSTEIN: That's correct.
MR. MARTONIK: That's correct.
MR. GROSSMAN: If a group, and that 1,470 percent increase is a factor many, many times higher than a 34 percent increase, is that correct?
DR. SILVERSTEIN: It's higher.
MR. GROSSMAN: It's a very powerful confounder, is that correct? If it is present.
DR. SILVERSTEIN: You haven't described what the confounder is.
MR. GROSSMAN: The confounder is Chinese cooking, a life time of Chinese cooking.
DR. SILVERSTEIN: I'm not sure that that, in fact, is a confounder in the studies that you're describing.
MR. GROSSMAN: You didn't look to see if it was, isn't that correct, though?
DR. SILVERSTEIN: I'm saying I have no information that that is, in fact, a confounder.
MR. GROSSMAN: You have no information that it is not a confounder, is that correct?
DR. SILVERSTEIN: That's correct.
MR. GROSSMAN: And notwithstanding the unusual representation of Asian-Americans in the study, you made no attempt to find out if it was a confounder.
DR. SILVERSTEIN: I'm unaware of the extent to which dietary histories were gathered and evaluated.
MR. GROSSMAN: Thank you very much.
That, by the way, is not dietary. It's a question of cooking, not eating. It's a separate question. It's not a question of a life time of eating Chinese food, it is cooking Chinese food.
DR. SILVERSTEIN: Okay.
MR. GROSSMAN: Are you familiar with maps of the United States indicating the presence of cancer hot spots for lung cancer?
DR. SILVERSTEIN: Yes.
MR. GROSSMAN: You're aware that three of the principal cancer hot spots in the United States are the New Orleans/Baton Rouge area, the Beaumont/Houston area, and the Oakland/San Francisco area? As well as...
DR. SILVERSTEIN: I don't know how you really define a hot spot, but there are several sectors in the United States where there are increased cases...
MR. GROSSMAN: And those increases are correlated with the presence of petrochemical plants, isn't that correct?
DR. SILVERSTEIN: No, there's a large literature that's investigated that question, and there are many different views about the relationship between cancer in those areas and the presence of petrochemical plants or exposure to petrochemicals.
MR. GROSSMAN: The Center for Disease Control publishes annual maps of lung cancer incidents in the United States, and those maps are not necessarily related to similar maps of cigarette consumption, isn't that correct? It's a matter of public record.
MR. MARTONIK: We don't know the answer to that.
MR. GROSSMAN: Have you studied it? Have you looked at it?
MR. MARTONIK: Looked at?
MR. GROSSMAN: Have you looked at it to see whether the areas used by Fontham were cancer hot spots as determined by the Center for Disease Control?
MR. MARTONIK: We generally reviewed the studies, and any factor that we thought was relevant was reviewed.
MR. GROSSMAN: That isn't an answer. Just answer the simple question.
Did you look at the charts of the Center for Disease Control to determine cancer hot spots?
MR. MARTONIK: My understanding is that the controls for those studies came from the same area...
MR. GROSSMAN: That isn't an answer to the question.
DR. SILVERSTEIN: The answer is that when studies are evaluated for their validity, one of the normal things that is done and routine things that's done is to consider whether the control groups are appropriate. And in making the consideration of whether control groups are appropriate, you take into account factors such as the one that you just mentioned. So it is fair to say that we considered that and we determined that the control groups were appropriate.
MR. GROSSMAN: The control group is a separate issue. Did you look to see whether the foci of the Fontham study were cancer hot spots as indicated by the Center for Disease Control maps and charts?
MR. MARTONIK: We are familiar with those maps, we've taken them into consideration. We've also considered the types of cancer that was observed in those hot spots as a general matter. And we thought our approach was sufficient to publish this proposal.
MR. GROSSMAN: That's not the question. I've spent 15 minutes trying to get an answer to a simple question.
MR. MARTONIK: We've been saying the answer. Yes. The answer is yes.
MR. GROSSMAN: You looked at the maps.
MR. MARTONIK: Yes.
MR. GROSSMAN: Okay, and when you looked at the maps, was Atlanta a hot spot? That's one of the foci of the...
MR. MARTONIK: We don't recall.
DR. SILVERSTEIN: Can you define hot spot?
MR. GROSSMAN: Yes, it's red on the chart.
MR. MARTONIK: I think I already asked him that and he didn't say what it was. He didn't say...
MR. GROSSMAN: Let's move on.
Was any attempt made in the Fontham study to control for proximity to petrochemical plants?
MR. MARTONIK: I don't know what you mean by an attempt by Fontham.
MR. GROSSMAN: Did the Fontham study control for residential proximity to petrochemical plants?
MR. MARTONIK: To our knowledge, only to the extent that the controls were local controls.
MR. GROSSMAN: Local within the metropolitan area?
MR. MARTONIK: Yes.
MR. GROSSMAN: You're familiar with the Brownson study generally. It is on several hundred non-smoking women who have lung cancer in Missouri. It came from more than one city, is that correct? It came from throughout the state?
MR. MARTONIK: We don't immediately recall.
MR. GROSSMAN: Wouldn't that be of interest if you say the need for more than one center is a good way of assessing the accuracy of the study?
MR. MARTONIK: It would be of interest, yes.
MR. GROSSMAN: The Brownson study is one of several papers that were published that compared, that attempted to determine the exposures of the non-smoking women who ended up with lung cancer in Missouri. The studies include one on occupational exposure published in 1993 in Cancer Causes and Controls. Are you familiar with that study?
MR. MARTONIK: We don't know.
MR. GROSSMAN: That published study that I've just cited to you indicated that use of pesticides showed a risk ratio, an observed risk of 3.1, which was statistically significant. 1.3 to 7.5, 95 percent confidence level. Do you know if any of the studies that you were relying upon have attempted to control for the confounder of pesticide use?
MR. MARTONIK: We believe that the different studies chose control groups which could have accounted for those types of factors.
MR. GROSSMAN: You believe that they could have. Do you know whether they did or not?
MR. MARTONIK: As a matter of fact, all the studies did use control groups, and the control groups contained information regarding the background risk of various cancers.
MR. GROSSMAN: The whole question of confounders, I don't need to tell you, can't be scripped away by saying there was a control group. The question is whether the control group had the same exposure to pesticides.
MR. MARTONIK: We don't know that the study contained a specific account of potential pesticide exposure.
JUDGE VITTONE: Excuse me, Mr. Grossman. You're coming up on 30 minutes.
MR. GROSSMAN: I haven't even gotten off this first area because I'm not getting straight answers to simple questions. Instead, I'm getting self-serving responses.
MS. SHERMAN: I think, Mr. Grossman, you're just not willing to accept the answers.
MR. GROSSMAN: No, no. The question, have you reviewed a study, does not require a paragraph answer.
MS. SHERMAN: That was asked and answered three times. You just kept on asking the same question in different ways.
MR. GROSSMAN: I'm going to move off the subject and try to move as fast as I can. I think it's extremely difficult this morning to obtain a simple answer to a simple question, but I'm going to move as quickly as I can.
JUDGE VITTONE: Let's not argue back and forth between the witnesses and between counsel. Let's try to ask the question as simply as possible and directly, and let's try to give as simple and direct an answer as possible.
MR. GROSSMAN: All right.
JUDGE VITTONE: Considering the other people and the schedule that we've got to try to adhere to today, I'm going to ask that you try to finish up by a quarter till, okay?
MR. GROSSMAN: I'll go as quickly as I can.
Yesterday, Dr. Silverstein, at the beginning of your comments in your opening statement, you made several comments about the chemical composition of ETS. You said it had 4,000 identified components. Do you recall making that statement?
DR. SILVERSTEIN: Yes.
MR. GROSSMAN: Four thousand chemical components haven't been identified in ETS, have they?
DR. SILVERSTEIN: Excuse me?
MR. GROSSMAN: Four thousand chemical components haven't been identified in ETS, have they?
DR. SILVERSTEIN: A very large number have. I can't tell you what the exact number is without referring to the literature.
MR. GROSSMAN: The literature is quite clear. There are 4,000 that have been identified in mainstream smoke, but we're not even in the hundreds.
DR. SILVERSTEIN: Excuse me?
MR. GROSSMAN: We're not even in the hundreds in ETS yet, are we?
DR. SILVERSTEIN: I think there are a very large number, and I can't tell you what that number is.
MR. GROSSMAN: And it's based upon your belief that there is a very large number that you are going ahead with this rulemaking, is that correct? It's based upon your belief that there are about 4,000.
DR. SILVERSTEIN: The fact that there are a large number of hazardous chemicals including many carcinogens in environmental tobacco smoke is an element that we consider important, but not determinative of...
MR. GROSSMAN: ETS has not been determined to be identical to mainstream smoke, has it?
DR. SILVERSTEIN: No, they contain different components and different concentrations.
MR. GROSSMAN: And ETS is not identical to sidestream smoke.
DR. SILVERSTEIN: No, it's not.
MR. GROSSMAN: It's not identical in concentration and it's not identical in phase distribution, isn't that correct?
DR. SILVERSTEIN: They're very similar and contain many of the same components, but the exact answer to your question is they're not identical.
MR. GROSSMAN: Dr. Silverstein, you said in your earlier remarks yesterday, and I applaud them on this point, that it makes no difference where a chemical comes from, the Agency is not interested in, I'll quote it to you directly. You said, "If the source of these airborne chemicals were production machinery or raw materials, ironically, few would question the legitimacy, indeed, the urgency of establishing rules to protect workers from exposure," and you were referring to carbon monoxide, formaldehyde and benzine. Do you recall that testimony?
DR. SILVERSTEIN: I didn't use the word ironically in my testimony.
MR. GROSSMAN: It's in your printed...
DR. SILVERSTEIN: I know I didn't say it, but other than that, you've quoted correctly.
MR. GROSSMAN: Dr. Silverstein, I agree with that. Could you tell me what the current limits are as set by OSHA on benzine in the atmosphere?
MR. MARTONIK: The permissible exposure limit is one part per million.
MR. GROSSMAN: That makes no difference what the benzine comes from, is that correct? Benzine in the work place.
MR. MARTONIK: That's not true. There is an exemption for gasoline stations.
MR. GROSSMAN: Outside of ga