Tobacco Documents Online

C c LAWRENCE G. SPIELVOGEL, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS W Y N C 0 T E N O U 9 E . W Y N C O~ T E', P E N N' S Y L V A. N' 1. A 19095 215-6 H7-56O0 October 6, 1980 Mr. Frederick H. Kohloss, P.E. Frederick H. Kohloss & Assoc., Inc. 345 Queen Street, Su~ite 401 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Re: ASHRAE Standard 62-73R Dear Fred: Thanks for your letter of September 30th in response to my letter of June 27th. By the way, your letter only arrived today so I hope mine reaches you by your deadline. I am still concerned about 5.1. Where natural ventilation and in- filtration are used you have a mandatory requirement that the ventilation rate be measurable, yet when mechanical ventilation is used the provision for air flow measurement is only suggested, and is not mandatory. This is not consistent. By changing "should" to "shall" in the second sentence this inconsistency would be re- moved. In either case, even if you don't make the change, it will be necessary to describe how ventilation is to be measured. In Table 3 I am still concerned about the variation in ventilation rates between smoking and non-smoking. In some instances smoking requires only twice as much ventilation air as no smoking, while in others it requires seven times as much. Certainly this is not consistent or uniform, nor does it have any technical or experimen- tal support. Taking your figures, one person smoking two cigar- ettes per hour would require 190 cubic feet of ventilating air in one hour, or a total of 3.17 CFM, which is only a very small fract- ion of the values listed for smoking. Therefore, in any given type of occupancy smoking should require an increase of no more than 3.17 CFM per person, while in most cases it will be less, since the same ventilation air that is used to dissipate other con- taminants will also dissipate smoke. Further, you don't say what kind of tobacco is being smoked. Certainly there are differences in the odor and contaminants generated between cigarettes, cigars, pipes and marijuana. If the significance of smoking is so great in determining ventilation rates, then the different types of materials smoked must also be considered. fl3'735,36 Apparently the draft that you have is different than mine. On the second page of your letter you make reference to line 7 on page 22, yet on my page 22 there is only a Table.

C LAWRENCE G. SPIELVOGEL, INC. Mr. Frederick H. Kohloss, P.E. Page -2- . October 6, 1980 I disagree with the additional text that you propose. Reading the text implies that whenever even one person is allowed to smoke in an occupied space, the quantity of ventilation air that must be supplied assumes that all persons are smoking. Even you say that such an assumption is unreasonable. I am also not satisfied with your resolution of my comment on resi- dential occupancies in Table 3. Smoking is either a contaminant or it isn't. If it is a contaminant then the ventilation rate should be set accordingly. If it isn't a contaminant in a house or an apartment, then it shouldn't be a contaminant in any other type of occupancy. Any house has more than one resident. If one of the residents smokes, won't it affect the others? The contamination from smoking is just as much of a concern as the contamination from strong perfumes and body odors. Indeed, much of the original ASHRAE literature on the subject of ventilation was based on studies of body odors. When sombody smells they smell, whether its 50 years ago or today. Similarly, perfume is just as much of a contaminant to some people as smoking or body odor is to others. You may wish to reconsider your resolution of my General Comment. I think that some action on the part of your Committee is required if you ever hope to have this Standard adopted either directly or by reference where it will be used and/or do any good. One of the reasons why both 55-74 and 62-73 are being widely utilized is be- cause they are reasonably straightforward and understandable. With your revision, it is my opinion that these criteria are no longer met, which would make many people very reluctant to adopt them. If the greater complexity were not bad enough, the fact that you are requiring such high rates of ventilation for smoking would further tend to make people reluctant to adopt your Standard, especially since there is no experimental evidence that indicates that the cur- rently used ventilation rates (which are much lower than the proposed smoking ventilation rates) are inadequate. For many types of buildings the increase in energy consumption, first cost and'operating cost by adopting this Standard are just not justi- fied by any of your references or any other publishedor experimental information that I am aware of. Very truly yours, LAWRENCE G. SPIELVOGEL, INC. C W ~ W tn ~ ielvogel, P.E. - `~ L. G. S LGS:bhs cc: J. Barrie Graham . ANSI 1 ~