Tobacco Documents Online

C EXHIBIT 3 l/„•... ., I•r.,,/,ril.,d..,,. ,iil..,ii1l..l l„1 1•ull,i._11r..q n { 1..1'q.• /•Ut':I,.~t1,41• t1r1Y /.rClil'Ifll IY nl.a/v J~..11'illlr wlll, Ih. •~•,rlrl",•:n.,,,,ltnl;lh~t,ll wldlinul'br• rlrr•1 w I.r.llt.rlwr.~1 ERI1 - PREPRINT J;nri nE~c~ri n~; Ijesear(~lr 1 nstit ute IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY AMES EN'F.hGY CONSERVATION, VENTIIJITION ANll ACCIiF7'AfiLls INl)UnR At K QUALITY James }:. Wnod':5 Uepartlnent 5 of Mechanical I:nI; i'nevring,. Architecture, and' EnRineeriing Rvsearch Institute October 1978 'JUN 1 5 1931 1•hi~c paper was preparecl, for the Symposium, "Tlie Human Factors Approach ~ to Energy ConServation and Technology - I," to be presented at the (,) HumaivFactors Society Annuali Meeting, Detroit, Michigan, October 19', 1978.W Ul1 . 0. .' O

ENERGY CONSERVATION, Vf:NTILAT1UN AND ACCP:PTARLE INDOOR AIR QllA1.1TY .James E. Woods Departments of Mechanical Engineering, Architecture, and Engineering Research Institute Iowa State University Ames, IA 50011 Abstract In response to current concerns about the depletion rates of nonrenewable energy resources, new codes and standards have been promulgated which require improved construction techniques and reduced ventilation rates. While implementation of these codes and standards has reduced energy consumption rates, degradation of indoor air quality has also been reported. These complaints indicate that arbitrary reduction of ventilation rates can result in deleterious effects to the occupants. Thus, a compromise solutiorr is required with the objective to provide a safe, healthy, and comfortable indoor environment by using materials and methods that optimize efficiency of energy use. To evaluate the feasibility of this objective, four basic functions of ventilation control are considered: (1) provision of sufficient 02 for normal respiration, (2) dilution of contaminants generated within the occupied space, (3) prCssurization to control infiltration and Oxfiltration, and (4) ventilation for thermal control. Each of these ftinctions are known to affect the health and comfort of the occupants and' to have significant impact on required energy consumption. v

C 2 'I'o achieve thc Eiill potential of vvntilntion control, required nvw ii irect iuns in cuntrol titr:rte};ie,: are ditir.uti:,ed including: (1.) def i- iri'ti'on and specification of acceptable indoor air quality, (2) mettinds of measurements, (3) methods of control, and (4) methods of evaluation or certification. Though some of these techniques have been utilized in industrial environments, their application in residential and commercial buildings has not been developed. In conclusion, some needed areas of . research effort are discussed. Introduction Control of "comfortable" or "acceptable" conditions within residential and commercial buildings is generally estimated to require approximately one-third of the total annual energy consumption in the United States. An additional 10 percent is probably required to maintain acceptable ronditions for occupants within industrial facilities. However, since 1973, dramatic reductions in energy requirements and associated fuel costs have been reported as results of newly adopted energy conservation (i.e., energy management) programs•. For example, it is not uncommon to find reports of energy reductions in the range of 30-60 percent (1-3). Ventillation systems have been reported to require as much as 50-60 percent of the total energy consumed inibuildings, and have become important and popular targets for energy conservation methods (4-6). Of serious concern today is that, in the name of energy conservation, arbitrary changes to codes and standards are being proposed which could jeopardize the healtli, safety or welfare of building occupants. Reduction of the depletion rate of natural resources is a necessary but insufficient step toward the development of acceptable energy management programs for

orcupird spaces. Also required is the economic maintenance of environ- mcnt.il comditiuns wlrich are not delOttrioti:; to the occupants. These con+fitions include Spatial, luminous and acoustic qualities of the enviromnent as well as the tr.ermal, gasous and particulate qualities of the air within that space. While luminous and acoustics qualities are not considered in this paper, their main and' interactive effects on energy consumption and occupant well being cannot be ignored in the development of successful energy management programs. Codes and Stan&ards By selecting the site, size, shape and orientation of indigenous housing, man has nearly always taken advantage of natural ventilation thermal and air quality control. When the chimney was discovered in the Middle Ages, he was able to improve his control of smoke concen- for trations in occupied spaces. During the seventeenth century, ventilatiom of occupied spaces was recognized by King Charles I and the first venti- lation code was promulgated (7). During the next two centuries,-major scientific advances were made including the discovery of 02 and COz, Dalton's law of partial pressures, description of the composition of air, description of the respiratory function, etc. Many of these discoveries subsequently led to new theories for ventilation requirements (7,ii). Alsoy during this time, the nature of buildings changed. In major cities, sitings were selected for reasons other than thermal control. As land became more expensive, high-rise !)uildings were developed and natural ventilation was no longer sufficient to control interior spaces. By the end of the 19th century, ventilation

codtn; and standards were being adopted i'n the iini ted States (9). A:, shown in Figure 1, vent i'lation rates increasr!d from 4 cfm/person in iH'it> to a maximum of 30 cfm/person in 1895. The requirement of 30 cfm/person dominated design of ventilation systems during the first quarter of the twentieth century, as evidenced by the fact that in 1925, the codes of 22 states required ventilation rate of 30 cfm outdoor air per person (8). a minimum A major change in ventilation standards resulted from experimental work reported by Yaglou, et. al. in the 1930's (10). These studies recognized the importance of controlling indoor air quality as well as ventilation air quantity, and, as shown in Figure 2, reported ventilation rates in cfm/'person required to provide "odor-free" environments as functions of available air space per person. It should be noted that these ventilation rates were based on the assumption that outdoor air (then called "fresh air") was odor-free. The Yaglou studies, conducted under controlled' experimental conditions, have served as the primary reference in codes and standards for the last forty years. However, because of the difficulty in accurately estimating occuprinc.y levels within spaces and due to the lack of feedback control methods for ventilation, many current codes and standards specify venti- lation requirements as room-air changes per hour rather than volumetri~c exchange rate per pertiom(11'-13). Theoretically, these criteria should be synonomous, but in practice they are not. When ventilation rates are specified as room-air changes per hour, sensitivity to spatial dimensions is lost. For example, 5 air changes per hour in a theater with a 20 ft ceiling height and an occupancy level of 100 ft2 floor space per person would result in 167 cfm/person, whereas the same room-air

c S OxCVrcin};u rate and occupancy level in a clastiroom with an 8 ft. ceiling hei);ire would mean 0 cfm/person. However, at full-load occupancies of 10 1( l/pvr5()n in thv theater and 2!) ft'/pertion In the cla s_5room, 5 air ch:mKe;; per hour would result in 17 cfm/person in the theater ansi 1 3 cfm/porson in t he c Inssroom. Thus, at less than full-load occupawc• ies, in this example, the ventilation rates per person would exceed the values shown in Figure 2, while at full loads the ventilation would be insuf- ficient to provide "odor-free" environments. Energy and cost implications of the preceeding example are significant. At the part-load conditions cited, the ventilation rate in the theater would be 10 times greater than required, and in the classroom S times greater. Assuming that these ventilation rates were constant and supplied an outc3oor air with an average five month winter dry-bulb temperature of 40°F, the additional' heating requirement to maintain the indoor temperature at 70oF would be 17.8 x 106 Btu/person in the theater and 6.4 x 106 Btu/person in the classroom. If the thermal efficiences of the heating systems were 65 percent and the average cost of energy were $4.00/10 6 Btu, the additional heating costs for the excess ventilation would be $110'/person in the theater and $39/person i'n the classroom. Note that these figures do not include costs for additional humidification that might be required. The inherent problems associated wi~th specifying air changes per hour have been recognized in some standards for several years. In 1946, the "American Standards Building Requirements for Light and Ventilation - A53.1"'was published by the American Standards Association (ASA) with primary criteria as cfm/ft2 floor area (1'4). A revision and update of A53.1 was published in 1973 by the Amurican Society of Heating,

6 liv Iri};t•ratiny and Air Conditioning F:ngineer:, (AtiHFtAE) with primary (ritL•ria as cfm/person (15). This latter standard subsequently was adc)pted ' I)y the American National Standards Inst itute (ANSI, formally ASA) in 1977 and has been designated ASNI Standard B194.1. The major differences between ASA Stand'.zrd A53.1 and ASHKAE Standard 62-73 are summarized in Table 1. For the first time in a ventilation standard, Standard 62-73 provided a quantitative definition of "acceptable outdoor air" and specified conditions under which recirculated air could be utilized. Both minimum and recommended ventilation rates were specified in the ASH}tA1: Standard to accommodate fuel economy (minimum values) or comfort in odor-free environments (recommended values). As shown in Table 2', estimated energy savings at design summer and winter conditions resulting from minimum ventilation rates specified in Standard 62-73 have been reported to range from 27 to 81 percent for various occupied spaces when compared to the previous Standard A53.L (5). In response to demands for energy efficient buildings, ASHRAE und'ertook an intensive effort and developed a new standard which was published in 1975: ASHRAE Standard 90-75, "Energy Conservation in New Building Design" (16). Though this Standlyd'~ is expected to reduce energy , requir.ements in new buildings from 15 to 60 percent (1), its promulgation, together with its codified counterpart (1'7), has resulted in a conflict with Standard 62-73. Standard 90-75 states that the minimum column in 62-73 for each type of occupancy shall be used'ifor design purposes. This statement eff ectively deletes the recommended~column in 62-73, and is the cause of serious concern regarding the possibility of insufficient ventilation in new buildings. For example, a case has been cited in wliich smoking was allowed in a room ventilated at the minimum rate of ' ~

c 7 S rfm/Perr,on. The retiultant carbon monoxide concentrat ionti approached thc• limitx specified by the Federal ambient air q+tali'ty standards and particulate concentrat.ions exceeded pitblishcd limits by 30 to 60 times (1,1H). New codes and standards also require more stringent control of allowable infiltration rates in buildings. Fur instance, the 1977 revisions; (Revision 5) to the 1973 11UD Minimum Property Standards result in infil- tratio'n rates in single-family residences of less than 0.7 air changes per hour. The 1976 Supplement 1 to Swedish Building Code (19) requires maximunr air leakage rates of approximately 1.7 m3/m2hr (i.e.,^- 0.6 air changes per hour). While contractors in the United States may have difficulty meeting the HUD Standards, reports from Sweden indicate that air leakage rates of less than 0.2 air changes per hour are common (20). These low infiltration rates have resulted in serious problems including insufficient combusion air for furnaces, back-drafting of fireplaces, measurable concentrations of radon gas, mercury vapor, formaldehyde and - other potentially hazardous materials (21-23). To this point, the codes anci standards that have been cited were developed by committees, commissions and' agencies comprised of experts in ventilation control. Problems associated with and resulting from these documents were acknowledged by these people, and care in implementation has always been stressed'. However, codes and laws are not always the ro::ult of scientific investigation or consensus of expert opinion. The 1.977 Assembly Bill 983 of the State of Wisconsin is an example of action taken in the name of energy conservation which did not have the support of either scientific investigation of consensus of expert opinion and which could tiave severe health and safety implications. This Bill was passed by the General Assembly, vetoe&by the Governor, over-ridden y ~. :

C h' ticn:and >,u:ctaim•d Iiy tl,t• Iiouv:v . 111 11 ')t3i, entitlt•d "Ventilation ~ ilvsqi, i roment s f or 1'ttlrl i c• Biti l d iny5 and P] are:. of r;mp loyment" would' have eliminated mandatory minimum ventilation requirements of 5 cfm/person during the period October lI to April 1 of each year. Thus, the building owner would have been allowed to close outside air intakes during this period or position them for any rate desired. However, if a person filed a written complaint with the proper authorities,the owner would have been required to provide written verification that the occupants' health, safety or wel~fare was not jeopardized. A ruling would then have been made by appropriate State authorities whether or not ventilation was required. Of particular concern is that this proposed legislation related to ventilation in all buildings including schools, hospitals and' industrial facilities. Moreover, justification for the Bill included statements that only a "minimum number" of complaints were received when similar action was taken the previous winter under an emergency rule. Needless to say, we are not yet at a point of consensus regarding "acceptable indoor air quality." However, it seems apparent that such a definition is necessary if we expect to economically maintain the indoor environment within conditions that will protect the health, safety and well being of the occupants. Acceptable Indoor Air Quality As indicated previously, difficulty in measurement and direct control of indoor air quality is the basic reason that current venti- O C.) ~ lation requirements are prescribed as volumetric flow rate per person, C C:~ t~~ (b

C. C voI lnuet r I'c fl ] ow rnt c laur un i t f I oor arc•a or room a ir exchange rate pcr ho,ur. 'fhe impliC:Itiou is that if the prv:;cri'bc•ti rc•quirements are met, then the indoor air quality will hv acceprable. However, many factors can influence the state of the indoor air quality. If sufficient ventilation rates are not prescribed to meet foreseeable variabilities, the resultant indoor air could be deleterious. Conversely, if sufficient ventilation rates are prescribed to meet all contingencies, the energy requirements for thermal control will be excessive. Therefore, environments is that a particular process can be analyzed an&the generation rates of specific contaminants can he reasonably predicted or measuredl. (MAC) and time-weighted average ('1WA) have been developed to protect the worker from potential industriaL health hazards (24). How these criteria are achieved is not prescribed. The responsibility to provide and maintain acceptable conditions resides with the designer, owner and operator of the systems. One reason that performance criteria can be utilized in industrial to provide acceptable indoor air quality at acceptable rates of energy consumption under various occupancy conditions will require control systems that can dynamically respond to changes in occupancy load, to outside air quality, and to thermal conditions. Specifications for these systems will require Performance rather than rp escri tive criteria. To a limited degree, performance criteria are now specified for industrial environments. Specifications for maximum allowable concentrations O conditions. A major question that must be resolved, now, is whether w -1 criteria considered to be acceptable in the industrial environment are C.J ~~ Q1 acceptable in non-industrial envi~ronments such as residences, offices, W Appropriate control techniques can then be employed to provide acceptable i