Tobacco Documents Online

Appendix C Testimony of Walker Merryman, TI, Vice-President, Northwest Power Planning Council Hearings, Boise, ID, March 11, 1983 -

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE NORTHWEST POWER PLANNING COUNCIL, MY NAME IS WALKER MERRYMAN'AND I AM VICE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE IN WASHINGTON, D.C. THE MEMBER COMPANIES OF THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE ARE EXTENSI-VELY ENGAGED IN THE COMMERCE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS IN THE FOUR STATE REGION OF WASHINGTON', OREGON, IDAHO ANDlM0IVTANA. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THE VENTILATION SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED REGIONAL CONSERVATION AND ELECTRIC POWER PLAN'S APPENDIX J "MODEL STANDARD FOR NEW STRUCTURES." SPECIFICALLY, I AM HERE TO TESTIFY IN'OPPOSITION TO TABLE 3-1, SECTION 305, CHAPTER 3 WHICH PROPOSES TO ADOPT DRASTICALLY DISPARATE VENTILATION REQUIREMENTS FOR SMOKING AND NONSMOKING AREAS IN BUILDINGS, THE VENTILATION'RATES PROPOSED BY SECTION 305 9.BE. IDENTIiCAL ZQ na RATES WH'.ICH ARE FOUND IN ASHRAE STANDARD 6Z-1981, A STANDARD WH'.ICH HAS BEEN SEVERELY CRITICIZED AND QUESTIONED FROM ITS IN'CEPTIONI MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO DRAW THE COUNCIL'S ATTENTION TO THE REACTION THAT ASHRAE STANDARD 6Z-1981 HAS RECEIVED FROM KNOWLEDGEABLE PROFESSIONALS AND1PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, THIS BRIEF REVIEW WILL DEMONSTRATE THAT THIS STANDARD AND PROPOSED TABLE 3-1 DO NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF PROFESSIONAL, SCIENTIFIC RIGOR NECESSARY FOR USE IN A BUILDING

CODE. IN AUGUST OF 1082, FOR EXAMPLE, THE BOARD OF STANDARDS REVIEW OF ANSI -- THE AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE -- VOTED TO DISAPPROVE ASHRAE STANDARD 62-1981 AS AN AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD, AFTER A REVIEW OF NUMEROUS CRITICISMS FROM ENGINEERS. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS, AND REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT, ANSI's BOARD OF STANDARDS REVIEW RULED THAT A CONSENSUS DIlD NOT EXIST FOR ASHRAE F2- 1981. ANSI's DECISION TO REJECT ASHRAE STANDARD 62-1981 AS AN AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD WAS BASED ON A NUMBER OF UNRESOLVED CRITICISMS OF THE ASHRAE STANDARD, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT ASHRAE DID NOT APPEAL THE ANSI REJECTION OF ITS STANDARD. _ ANSI HAS NOT BEEN THE ONLY NATIONAL ORGANIZATION TO.REJECT ASHRAE STANDARD 62-1981. IN JANUARY OF TH'IS.YEAR, BOCA OR THE BUILDING OFFICIALS AND CODE ADMINISTRATORS INTERNATIONAL, A MAJOR BUILDING CODE ORGANIZATION SERVING SOME_27 STATES, HELD PUBLIC.HEARIdGS_ON PROPOSED_CODE CHANGES, ONE OF THE CODE CHANGES PROPOSED THE INCORPORATION OF THE VENTILATION RATES SPECIFIED IN_ASHRAE_62-1981, WHICH ARE IDENTICAL TO THOSE FOUND IN TABLE 3-1 OF THE COUNCIL'S MODEL STANDARD FOR NEW STRUCTURES, AFTER HEARING TESTIMONY FROM. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES, THE BOCA MECHANICAL CODE CHANGES COMMITTEE VOTED TO;DENY INCLUSION OF THE ASHRAE VENTI LATION RATES I NTO THE BOCA BAS I C MEC:-fAN'I CAL CODE, THE OFFICIAL-BOCA REASON FOR REJECTING THE ASHRAE -2- ~

STANDARD 62-1981 VENTILATION RATES WAS AS FOLLOWS: "THERE IS INSUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR REQUIRING SEPARATE VENTILATION RATES FOR SMOKING AND NONSMOKING AREAS. ONLY ONE COLUMN OF RATES SHOULD BE LISTED IN THE CODE1 " (BOCA MAGIAZINE~ JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1983. P, 33) IN FACT, THE ASHRAE STANDARD 62-1981 AND ITS VENTILATION RATES HAVE BEEN A SOURCE OF SIGNIFICANT CONTROVERSY WITHIN THE ASHRAE ORGANIZATION ITSELF, WHEN STANDARD 62- 1981- WAS REVIEWEDiBEFORE PROMULGATION BY ASHRAE IN 1981. IT RECEIVED SERIOUS CRITICISMS FROM THE SOCIETY'S MEMBERS AND OTHERS. Now ASHRAE ITSELF HAS CALLED FOR ARINTERI'M INTERPRETA- TION COMMITTEE WHICH WILL EVALUATE CRITICISMS OF THE STANDARD, AND A NEW STANDARDS COMMITTEE FOR ASHRAE 62-1981 HAS CONVENED TO CONSIDER ITS EARLY REVISION, THUS. _ ADOPTION'OF THE LANGUAGE AND CONTENT OF ASHRAE 62-1981 MAY-4VELL PROVE TO BE PREMATURE, BECAUSE ASHRAE ITSELF COULD, REVISE THE STANDARD IN SIGN'IFICANT WAYS. IN MY OPINION. IT WOULD BE ILL-ADVISED TO ADOPT THE VENTILATION RATES SET FORTH IN TABLE 3-1 WHEN THE SCIENTIFIC CONCERNS OF THE MANY OPPOSED TO ASHRAE 62-1981 ARE STILL UNRESOLVED AND UNDERGOING FURTHER STUDY. , Several PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ANDiSCIENTISTS HAVE REPEATEDLY POINTED OUT THE LACK OF TECHNI1CAL AND SCIENTI1FIC SUPPORT FaR THE VENTILATION

y*RATES WH~I CH ARE P(SCR IBED I RASHRAE 62-1981,` ALTHOUGH VENTILATION RATES ARE PRESCRIBED1FOR SMOKING AND NONSMOKING AREAS. THE STANDARD DOES NOT FURNISH EITHER FORMULAE OR CALCULATI!ONS FOR THE VENTILATION REQUIREMENTS, NOR IS ANY EXPLANATION OFFERED FOR THE GREAT DISPARITIES IN VENTILATION REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN SMOKING AND NONSMOKING AREAS, FOR EXAMPLE. THE VENTILATION RATE DlIFFERENCE BETWEEN' SMOKING AND, NONSMOKING AREAS IN A BARBERSHOP IS LESS THAN TWOFOLD. WHILE A FLORIST WOULD REQUIRE FIVE TIMES THE VENTILATION I!N A SMOKING COMPARED TO A NONSMOKING AREA, SUCH DIFFERENCES ARE NOT EXPLAINED BY THE STANDARD AND THE LACK OF UNIFORMITY EXHIBITEDlAMONG VENTILATION RATES indicates the requirements are ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATION', . THESE CRITICISMS. I MIGHT ADD, WERE PRESENTEDTO ANSI's BOARD OF STANDARDS REVIEW IN ITS CONSIDERATION OF ASHRAE 62-1981, REGARDING THE VENTILATION RATES DESIGNATED IN THE STANDARD, A CONSULTING ENGINEER WROTE THAT "THE DIFFERENCE IN OUTDOOR REQUIREMENTS FOR SMOKING AND NONSMOKING IS NOT CONSISTENT OR UNIFORM AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY TECHNICAL OR EXPERIMENTAL SUPPORT," SIMILARLY, A SPECIALIST IN INDOOR AIR QUALITY AT LAWRENCE BERKELEY LABORATORIES ASKED1FOR REFERENCES WHICH WOULD SUPPORT THE VENTILATION RATES IN ` ASHRAE 62-1981. BUT NONE WERE FORTHCOMING. BOTH CRITICISMS REMAIN UNRESOLVED,

M IT HAS BEEN! ESTIMATED IN AN ASHRAE PRESS RELEASE THAT COMPLIANCE WITH ASHRAE 62-1981 WOULD EFFECTIVELY DOUBLE THE COST OF ENERGY FOR TYPICAL BUIDLINGS, SUCH ENERGY EXPENDITURES WOULD BE ESPECIALLY WASTEFUL AND UNJUSTIFIED BECAUSE THE VENTILATION RATES REQUIRED BY THE STANDARD HAVE n o established SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT, AND BECAUSE NOWHERE IN THE STANDARD IS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT PRESENT VENTILATION STANDARDS ARE INADEQUATE, RECOGNIZING THE COUNCIL'S GENUINE CONCERN FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION, SERIOUS CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO CONSERVATION ORIENTED ALTERNATIVES TO THE VENTILATION RATES PROPOSED IN TABLE 3-1. FOR EXAMPLE, ASHRAE HAS ITS -OWN ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARD -- STANDARD 90-80 ENERGY CONSERVATION Ij NfW_ BmLniju DESIGN -- WH,ICH IS USED AS A MODEL FOR' ENERGY CODES IN NEARLY ALL OF THE 50 STATES. THE ~ ASHRAE ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARD RECOMMENDS THE USE OF VENTILATION RATES SPECIFIED IN AN EARLIER ASHRAE STANDARD. THE PRECURSOR To ASHRAE STANDARD 62-1981. THE MORE CONSERVATIVE VENTILATION RATES DELINEATED IN THE EARLIER VENTI1LATION STANDARD HAVE NEVER BEEN DEMONSTRATED TO BE INADEQUATE AND MOREOVER, WOULD BE MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT THAN THE INCREASED VENTILATION RATES SPECI1FIED IN ASHRAE 62-1981, THIS FACT LED THE CHAIRMAN OF ASHRAE's ENERGY CONSERVATION'STANDAR'D T0, RECENTLY STATE THAT "ASHRAE STANDARD 62-1981 . , , IS NOT, HAS NOT, AND WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE ASHRAE STANDARD -5- i

". ~ C r•~~`~gO COMMITTEE FOR hiICORPORATION IN ASNRAE' STAh~ARD 90, `(LAWRENCE SPIELVOGEL, TESTIMO-NY, BOCA ANNUAL MEETING, CHERRY HILL. NEW JERSEY, .JANUARY lD. Igg31) IT IS FOR THESE REASONS THAT I WOU!D URGE THE NORTHWEST POWER PLANN'ING COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THE USE OF THE VENTILATION RATES SPECIFIED IN ASHRAE's STANDARD FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION 90-80 IN LIEU OF THE VENTILATION RATES CURRENTLY PROPOSEDlIN TABLE 3-1 OF APPENDIX J OF THE COUNCIL'S MODEL STANDARD FOR NEW STRUCTURES, AS AN' ESSENTIAL PART OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF MY POSITION'. I HAVE LOOKED INTO QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTION OF TOBACCO SMOKE TO INDOOR ENV:IRONMENTS, BASED ON!THE RELIABLE SCIENTIFIC STUDIES I HAVE READ. I CONCLUDE THAT BECAUSE TOBACCOlSMOKE IS ALMOST IMMEDIATELY DILUTED. ITS CONTRIBUTION TO INDOOR ATMOSPHERES HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE SIGNIFICANT, IN FACT, A STUDY CONDUCTED BY SCIENTISTS FROM THE HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH SHOWED THAT EVEN!IN THE SMOKIEST PLACES SUCH AS BARS, COCKTAIL LOUNGES AND WAITING ROOMS. THE EXPOSURE OF THE NONSMOKER TO TOBACCO SMOKE IS MINIMAL. I AM ALSO AWARE THAT CLAIMS HAVE BEEN MADE THAT OTHER'PEOPLE'S TOBACCO SMOKE HAS SERIOUS HEALTH CONSEQUENCES FOR THE NONSMOKER. IN MY JUDGMENT, NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE FOR THIS CLAIM HAS EVER APPEARED:IN THE MEDICAL LITERATURE, SOME OF THE STUDIES RELIED ON BY THOSE WHO MAKE THIIS CHARGE WERE CONDUCTED IN UNREALISTI1C SITUATIONS TH'AT DO NOT HAVE C ~ RELEVANCE TO EVERYDAY LIFE. W C,^.. N , ,jg~ -11 ~__~_~

c ASHRAE STANDARD 62-1981 THUS SEEMS TO BE MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER VENTILATION STANDARD -- ITS SINGLE MINDEDiFOCUS ON SMOKING AREAS AS THE TARGETS FOR MARKEDLY IN CREASED VENTILATION REQUIREMENTS IS MISPLACED~, BASED ON MY REVIEW' OF THE SHORT AND CONTROVERSIAL HISTORY OF 62-1981. I AM CONFIDENT THAT THE ASHRAE COMMITTEE TO BE FORMED TO REVISE IT WILL TAKE HEED OF THE SERIOUS CRITICISMS OF THE VENTILATION REQUIREMENTS, FOR THESE REASONS. I WOULD URGE THE COUNCIL TO REJECT THE INCORPORATION OF THE VENTILATION RATES IN ASHRAE 62-1981 INTO, TABLE 3-1 OF THE COUNCIL'S MODEL STANDARD FOR NEW STRUCTURES, }