Bliley PM
DISCUSSION POINTS: OSHA'S PROPOSED RULE ON WORKPLACE IAQ
Abstract
Discusses issues raised by OSHA's proposed rule on workplace indoor air quality (IAQ), which states that "indoor smoking should be restricted to enclosed, designated smoking areas with separate exhaust." States opposition to proposed restrictions in restaurants and bars as well as office workplaces, indicating OSHA's preliminary position is not supported by scientific data. Discusses feasibility requirements, encouraging affected parties not to treat proposed rule as final. States "A COMPREHENSIVE IAQ APPROACH THAT DOES NOT SINGLE OUT INDOOR SMOKING IS NEEDED." Cites studies that indicate the majority of air quality problems are attributable to "inadequate outdoor air ventilation" not environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Opines that tobacco smoke is often blamed for IAQ problems in the absence of supporting data, because it is easily seen and smelled. Suggests OSHA incorporate the ASHRAE's voluntary consensus standards (Standard 62-1989), approved by the American National Standards Institute, into its proposed rule. Addresses issues of "CLAIMS OF WORKPLACE IAQ HEALTH EFFECTS", stating that existing data and epidemiological studies do not support a statistically significant relationship. Offers alternative solutions to smoking in workplaces, restaurants and bars. Addresses related issues, i.e. "WHAT IS ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE?", " ETS EXPOSURE AND LUNG CANCER IN NONSMOKERS", and "ETS EXPOSURE AND CLAIMS OF IRRITATION AND ANNOYANCE." Discusses causes and symptoms of "sick school syndrome" and factors that contribute to the spread of TB. Cites references.
Fields
- Type
- Report
- Author
- Shook, Hardy and Bacon
- Recipient
- Philip Morris Legal Department
Dr. Aviado was a University of Pennsylvania professor and did work for tobacco companies. Dr. Aviado did secret dog inhalation studies in 1970s which were apparently covered up. Dogs were inhaling. No research papers were ever done, apparently (B.C. 7/7/94).
Change Control
Theodor Sterling was a statistician with Simon Fraser University, Canada. He is listed as a consulting scientist for the tobacco industry in 1988 memo PM 2023034933/4946 from Andrew Whist to R. Murray. Sterling presented the industry's point of view at indoor air symposia in Tokyo, 1987 and in the U.K. in 1988.Industry Consultant and CTR Special Project recipient.
Defense
OSHA opened hearings in September 1994 on a proposal that amounts to a virtual ban on smoking in every workplace in the nation
Document Images
DISCUSSION
POINTS
OSHA'S PROPOSED
RULE ON
WORKPLACE IAQ
We have received copi~es of 0SHA's proposed ru~e on workplace
indoor air quality but we have not received the voluminous
"regulatory text" that OSHA will apparently publish.
we at Philip Morris can assure you that we will carefully
study OSHA's proposed rule and the "regulatory text" and, as
we have done in the past, we will offer any expertise or
sci~entific data that we may h,ave to OSHA for inclusion in
OSHA's decision-making process. We offered extensive analyses
and data to OSHA in response to its Request For Information
(RFI) on indoor air qua~lity (IAQ) issues in 1991, and we
intend to participate fully in OSHA's current process.
At this juncture, however, we can say that OSHA's preliminary
position as stated in the proposed, rule, that indoor smoking
should be restricted to enclosed, designated smoking areas
with separate exhaust is not supported by the scientific data
already in OSHA's public docket or by the scientific
literature in, general. We will oppose any rule that mandates
such restrictions.
Becau.se OSHA's rulemaking may take (by OSHA's own estimate)
several years, employers, building owners and others should
not treat OSHA's proposed rule, issued at the commencement of
a long regulatory process, as a final workplace IAQ standard.
We also oppose what amounts to a ban of smoking in restaurants
and bars by virtue of the draconian measures contained in
OSHA's proposed rule,. OSHA purports (i) to. treat restaurants
and bars as office workplaces, (ii) to require separate,
enclosed smoking:areas for all restaurants and bars covered by
the proposed: rule and (iii) to prohibit employees (such as
waiters and waitresses) from entering the smoking areas as a
part of their employment. This callous, regulatory over-
reach,ing by OSHA is not supported by OSHA's public docket
(indeed OSH~ d~d not specifically address restaurants and bars
in. its RFI) and is not supported by the scientific data.
OSHA's proposed ban on smoking in restaurants and bars is but
one aspect of the severe, arbitrary approach OSHA has set
forth regardilng indoor smoking:
(i)
Indoor smoking would be restricted in hotels (i.e.~
smoking could not occur in the presence of hote~
3
employees);
(ii)
Presumably, an employer with two employees working
in a one room business would have to designate an
enclosed smoking area -- this according to
Assistant Secretary Dear at the March 25, 1994
press conference;
(iii)
According to Assistant Secretary Dear, OSHA
inspections would routinely become involved in. the
inspection and regulation of workplace smoking in
all workplaces under OSHA's jurisdiction
(70 million workers in 4.5 million non-industrial
indoor work environments);
(iv)
If a workplace had twenty employees and all twenty
smoked, OSHA's proposed rule would still mandate
smoking in. enclosed, designated areas with, separate
exhaust; and
(v)
Smoking: in private, indoor offices would not be
allowed.
I Og6559g
4~
A COMPREHENSIVE IAQ APPROACH THAT DOES NOT
SINGLE OUT INDOOR SMOKING IS NEEDED
While we welcome any comprehensive, objective and scientific
review of overall workplace indoor air quality by OSHA, if the
scientific data and information already contained in OSHA's
public docket are thoroughly reviewed, OSHA's preliminary
positions on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and indoor
smoking, as set forth in OSHA's proposed rule, simply cannot
be supported.
To the extent that OSHA ultimately includes environmental
tobacco smoke and indoor smoking as a part of an overall
approach to indoor air quality issues in the workplace, we
support a comprehensive approach to overall workplace IAQ by
OSHA -- but only ~f such an approach is objectively based on
sound science.
In our prior response to OSHA's RFI, we supported a
comprehensive approach, to addressing indoor air quality in the
workplace. The central focus of a comprehensive, "building
systems approach" is upon ventilation, which includes
provisions for adequate outdoor air and its distribution to
occupied spaces.
A comprehensive approach to IAQ has been consistently
advocated to OSHA by such diverse groups as governmental
agencies, labor unions, professional organizations and product
manufacturers, in comments submitted to OSHA's public docket.
A comprehensive approach to IAQ by OSHA is also supported by
over 2,000 investigations o£ so-ca~lled "sick-buildings" by
government and private investigators in North America. The
data from those investigations ~ndicate (i) that over one-half
of all indoor air quality problems identified in sick-
buildings can be traced to ~nadequate outdoor air ventilation,
and (ii) that an additional and substantial percentage of
problems can be traced to poor a~r circulation and filtration
and inadequatemaintenance of the air handling systems. Those
It is well established that adequate ventilation, decreases
exposure to various substances in indoor air and prevents
and/or a~leviates complaints about indoor air quality.
Adequate outdoor air intake and its distribution to occupied
workplaces serves to dilute and/or remove a wide range of
potential substances in the air, including carbon dioxide,
biologicals, radon, carbon monoxide, velatile organic
compounds, and, yes, environmental tobacco smoke. This~
solution remains constant as work activities of building~
tenants and the ,,mix,, of substances in indoor air change over~
time. This is a feasible, comprehensive, and cost-effective~
solu~tion to addressing workplace indoor air quality.
data also confirm that ETS is a factor in only about 2-4% of
all buildings investigated.
Any comprehensive approach to indoor air quality also
recognizes that proper ventilation should be provided in any
enclosed space, regardless of whether or not smoking is
permitted. Ventilation air is required for dilution and
removal of by-products of human, metabolism and work-related
activities.
Although a comprehensive approach to workplace indoor air
quality is mandated, OSHA appears to regard its primary focus
as one of implementing workplace smoking bans or severe
restrictions on indoor smoking. This is despite the fact that
such measures are not supported by scientific data, and that
such a singular focus clearly detracts from an overall IAQ
approach.
Tobacco smoke, because it is ea~sily seen and smelled, is often
blamed for ~AQ problems. Smoking, however, is only one small
part of the much larger issue of workplace indoor air quality.
While we acknowledge that smoking bans or restrictions to
separately exhausted smoking areas have been perceived by many
as an easy, inexpensive solution to complaints about poor
indoor air quality, such. approaches simply do not address
workplace IAQ issues.
Data from numerous ambient air measurement studies on ETS
constituents inpublic places, offices and restaurants, do not
support the contention of those who advocate smoking bans or
the segregation of smokers to separately ventilated rooms.
If OSHA looks at the data which documents serious indoor air
quality problems in schools (where smoking does not occur),
OSHA will see a clear illustration of the hazards of poor
indoor air quality and, th,e need for a comprehensive regulatory
approach to IAQ.
Philip Morris has long advocated the accommodation of the
interests of smokers and nonsmokers alike. Accommodation
attempts to strike a balance between those who wish to. smoke
and those who do not want to be exposed to ETS. Adults shou.ld
have the freedom to smoke, subject to applicable laws and
ordinances and tempered by the basic responsibility to act
courteously toward people who are bothered by tobacco smoke.
Accommodation relies on a balance -- one that does not
discriminate unfairly against either smoker or nonsmoker and
one which does not give any special rights to either group.
In~ pursuing: accommodation, nonsmokers~ annoyance in. the
presence of tobacco smoke is to be minimized.
This accommodation approach recognizes that studies
consistently report that typical nonsmoker exposures to ETS
are minimal, often at or below limits of detection for
sensitive air monitoring devices, and often indistinguishable
from "background: levels" of constituents found in buildings
where smoking is altogether prohibited.
OSHA wil~ find that complaints about workplace exposures to
ETS can be addressed in a number of ways. Since workplaces,
public places, and restaurants are infinitely varied, smoking
policies should: be designed to fit the requirements of each
individual workplace. The question of the feasibility of
implementing one or more options on smoking is best determined
om, an individua~ or case-by-case basis. In some locations,
smoking restrictions may be unnecessary; in others, minimal
changes, for example, the simple separation of smokers and
nonsmokers, may sensibly accommodate the interests of both.
Severe restrictions by OSHA on smoking in the workplace are ~
simply un.justi~ied: by the data on ETS exposures and will do ~
nothing to improve fresh air ventilation or reduce exposure to ~
other substances in the indoor air. The
scientific
literature, already contained in OSHA's public docket,
indicates that the simple separation of smokers and nonsmokers
can adequately minimize nonsmoker exposure to ETS. We are
confident that if OSHA looks at all workplace data, it will
reach these conclusions.
10865598
10
