Lists 41 mock questions only written in preparation for Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) hearing regarding Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) workplace exposure, regulations, industry and independent health effects research, company policies and practices, ongoing lawsuits, etc. Approaches questions from standpoint of OSHA questioners in 'devil's advocate' style. Includes some notes in marginalia.
What isyour company's position on smo~inglounges? separately
Exactly, what is your Company's pcsitien on:the health, effects
of ETS exposure in the workplace?
• Do~s ETS exposure cause lung cancer?
• Does ETS ~xpoeure cause heart
, Does ETS ~xpouure cause respiratory disease in adult~?
In your Company's vlew does smoking cause any of ~e~ health
eE~ects? ~sn~t ETS the same as tobacco saoMe, only at reduced
What is ~he scientific basis for your company's views on ETS?
Can:you fdentify non-industry scientists who share your views?
Q. Why have NIOSH, the Surgeon ~naral, EPA and a score of other
groups all come ~o different conclusions? How do you ~xplain ~.
weight of this e~denc and the conaistency of overall ~
sclentiEic opinion? ~
Page 2: 2023856687
What additional ¢cientific data can ysur Company provide £c.
support these poeitions?
As a matter of intere$t~ what is your Company's policy
concerning indoor smokinq in theworkplace?
HoW does your Company ensure a~equate !AQ in th~ office
What would you want us to do regarding requlatory activity
relating to the workplace? What do you think should~ be done?
}~at, in turn., will you support?
Your Company hat urged a building systems approach ~o IAQ.
lan~t a Building sy~:em~ approach a much stronger approach if
reasonable source control mea~ure~ such as restricting
smoking, are incorporated?
Why woul~In.'£ a separate ruiemaMlng conc~rnlng environnent~l
tobacco smoke not only be appropriate, but in your interest?
Smokinq is not an~ integral port of any production process or
office procedure. Why shouldn't steps be taken to ~estrict
indoor ~m~king in the workplace if it doesn't harm th~ overall
produotion proc~=~ in off~ce anviro~ents, but it does reduce
- 2 -
Page 3: 2023856688
any possible riuk to nonsmokers? ShouLdn't we come down
the side of proteoting nonsmokers?
what abou~ pregnant women -- isn'~ exposure to environmental
tObaCco smoke in the workplace harmful to women who are
pregnant? Should/~'t steps be ~aken, in an abundance of
caution, to. restrlc~workplace exposures?
We are Lnclined to approach indoor smoking from the standpoint
of allowinq smoking in segregated areas that are separated
ventilated and exhausted. What is wrongwit2: such an approach?
Isn't such an approach the essence of "accommodation"?
The EPA's risk aEsessment suggests that there is no safe
%hreshold for expo~ur~ to environmental tobacco smoke. Given
~is no threshold concept,, why shouldn't ws take action to
restrict involuntary exposure to envlronmen£al smoke in th~
indoor ~orKplace? Shouldn't we error, if at al!, on the si4e
of protecting the working public?
('Q'I What research has your Company conducted concerning t~e ~ea!th
effects of environmental tobacco smoke? Will you share such
Page 4: 2023856689
W~at research ~as your Company done concern£ng monitoring of
~Xposure to environmental toD~cco smoke in the indoor
workplace? Will you shaze such research?
What studies or research have you done concerning smoking
lounges? Can you supply it to us?
Would'your Company be willing to fund further studies regarding
exposure to environmental tobacco smoke inthework~.a~e..~ ~ ~
What joint action are you prepared to undertake w~th OSHA
regarding ~ regulatory approach to ETS in the workplace?
W~y did your Company fil8 th~ lawsuit against the EPA?
Q. [EPA began wor~ng on t~e r~sk assessment approximately f~ve
years ago. Before releasing t~e ~Inal rls~ assessment, the
agency released two draft documents. With regard to. lung
cancer, both drafts reached the same conclusion as the f±nal
risk assessment -- that ETS is a Group A carcinogen.]' The
firs~ draft of the risk assessment was released to the public
morm than three years ago, and the zeco~d draft was released
a full y~ar ago. The finml r~sk assmmsment was released: more
than six months ago. ~f EPA was c~arly ~ong, why have you
wai~ed until now to fi~ this lawsuit?
Page 5: 2023856690
Why did you file t~e EPA lawsu£t in ~Torth Carolina and not
here in the Distr~c~ where the federal agencies are?
Q. Does Gray Robertson work for you? Jim TozZi?
Since the risk assessmen~ was released in January 1993, many
workplace~ have banned smcking, and several states ha~e passed
laws prohibiting indoor smoking in~ a wide range of public
pl~ces. How is this lawsuit g~ing t~ change those decisions
You agree -- and even allege ~n l~wsuit -- that th~ EPA has
no regulatory authority over smoking? You'd agree that we
have authori, ty?
Since others such as the U.S. Surgeon General already Dave
re~orted that ETS causes lung cancer, what's so troubling
about the EPA's conclusion?
Isn't thi~ E~A lawsuit ~imply another step by the tobacco
industry to block the flow of information to the public and
perhap= even to our agency?
- 5 -
Page 6: 2023856691
Generally speakIDg, wouldn't you agree ~shat fe~erai agencies
such as EPA and OSHA have an oDilga~lon to identify and
publicize health risks for the American people?
As a matter of general interest, why does your complaln~ fall
to challenge the risk assessment's conclusion t~at parental
smoking causes respirato~-~diseases and disorders in chl~dren?
What's your position on ETS exposure and kids?
EPA's Ri~k A~e~smont Guld~lines establish the very
cl~ssification system you challeng~ in your lawsuit. How
could EPA have had authority to perform a risk a~sessmont of
ETS ~nder the Radon Act and~not h~ve hadauthorityto classify
i~ as a G~oup A carcinogen?
After this EPA: report, aren't employers exposed to potential
liability if they alZ0w smoking in the workplace? ~at is
your positron on their legal liability for involuntary employee
exposure to ETS?
With your EPA law~uZt, are you sayin~ that American employers
have no liability for ETS exposure a~ Wor~?
Even if you are sucuessful with your ~awsuit, it doesn't c~ange
t~e underlying science. Doesn't the science ~il, l mandate
Page 7: 2023856692
that employers tame seeps to resurict involuntary exposure to
ETS -- a~d isn't that w~ere OsKA can, help?
What did EPA do or fail to do tha~ makes its classiEication
of ETS as a Group A carcinogen "arbitral~ and capricious?
Haven't all ef yoUr arguments about the "bad science" in the
ri~k assessment already~een made several times tot he EPA
Science Advisory Board that reviewed the various drafts of
t~he risk assessment?
In our talks with EPA they empha8ize biological plausibility
and posltlve dose r~3ponse. What dc you. say?
GiVe~ that t~e SAB unanimously endorsed the conclusion that
ETS is a Group A carcinogen, how do you expect to persuade
any judge that ~.is classification is arbitra~fand capricious?
With ysur EPA lawsuit, are you te~!ing OSHA and the A~erican
puSllc that ETS exposure is safe -- that ~t doesn~'t cause
If we were to discuss coats and benefits of workplace smoking,
wl%a~ possibl~ benefits c~n you cite to?
Page 8: 2023856693
If OSHA agrees to pursue one rulemaklng on IAQ/ETS would you
agreQ tc ~moklng lounges?