Tobacco Documents Online

1 TESTIMONY OF LYNN RHINEHART OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH SPECIALIST DEPARTMENT OP OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR REGULATION COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WOREB ON B. 656, THE INDOOR AIR QUALITY ACT OF 1993 93-17 MAY 25, 1993 I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today to discuss the AFL-CIO's views concerning indoor air quality and to express our support for S. 656, the Indoor Air Quality Act of 1993. Those in the labor movement who have been working for years to find solutions to indoor air quality problems welcome the recognition and attention to the issue that this legislation provides. The 86 unions of the AFL-CIO represent approximately 14 million workers, many of whom work inside buildings that have indoor air quality problems. 'As such, indoor air quality is an issue of great interest and concern to AFL-CIO members. In fact, for some of our affiliated unions, indoor air quality is the occupational safety and health issue about which they receive the most complaints and requests for assistance. Our affiliated unions receive countless calls from their members who are suffering from the allergy-like symptoms and other disorders that poor indoor air quality can cause. A recent survey conducted for the American Federation of Government Employees found that over 50 percent of respondents reported experiencing health symptoms that are typical of sick building syndrome. Half of those ~ who experienced problems were treated by a health professional. ~ ~ Fifty-four percent of workers who experienced problems lost time ~ C.`. ~ ISSUE 49 p,ppENDIX C

2 from work because of the problem. In addition, a number of our unions have had incidents where members have become seriously ill or have died due to indoor air pollution. A member of the Service Employees union lost most of one lung due to exposure to a rare fungus that was found in the poorly-maintained ventilation system where he worked. And you may recall the incident two years ago at a Social Security Administration building in Richmond, California, where a worker died and many others were made ill from Legionnaire's Disease due to bacteria that were spread throughout the building through the ventilation system. An emerging indoor air threat is tuberculosis, which can be transmitted through the air. Healthcare workers in Florida, New York, and other areas have contracted TB because of bacteria being transmitted through the air from TB-infected patients. In addition to the health problems that poor indoor air quality can cause, bad indoor air is responsible for a significant loss in worker productivity, which translates into enormous costs to businesses and our nation as a whole. The EPA estimated in its 1989 Report to Congress that poor indoor air quality costs tens of billions of dollars each year in medical expenses and lost productivity. Other surveys have found that anywhere from 25 percent to 50 percent of workers take at least one day off from work each year due to ailments caused by indoor air pollution. When you multiply these figures by the population working in the d estimated one million buildings with indoor air quality problems, you see that poor indoor air quality is causing a tremendous drain

3 on our economy, in addition to the impact on human health. Responding to the broad range of problems caused by poor indoor air quality and the diverse possible causes of poor indoor air quality, unions have worked to develop practical and effective solutions to indoor air quality problems. This presents a number of challenges, including: 1. Def ining the health conditions caused by indoor air pollution. Many times when union members complain of health symptoms, such as eye, nose and throat irritation, headaches, fatigue, dizziness or disorientation, these symptoms are interpreted as subjective responses not associated with a specific physical agent present in the workplace. There are many possible causes of the health symptoms, including exposure to spores or fungi being blown through poorly cleaned and maintained duct work, or reactions to formaldehyde being emitted from new carpets or curtains, or residue of pesticides used to fumigate offices, or paint vapors. It is often nearly impossible to demonstrate a decisive cause and effect relationship between the culprit and the response. In addition, the symptoms may be produced by a combination of air contaminants, coupled with insufficient oxygen that produces a general malaise. These health complaints will often be ignored because the health symptoms do not translate to a diagnosable illness or cannot be attributed to a particular cause. Such is often the case with occupational illnesses. Unfortunately, building owners or employers will often say that because there is not a specific 8'78t)5841

4 ailment traced to a specific substance, that the problem is with the worker and not with the air quality. This results in great frustration among the affected workers, and can sometimes make workers even more anxious about their symptoms. 2. Quantifying and identifying the causative agents. Finding the culprit behind workers' symptoms can be a difficult task. Climatic conditions and maintenance procedures, work practices, remodeling, or malfunctioning equipment all might be reasons why air quality is poor. These conditions and activities may vary daily or seasonally. Exposures to contaminants generated from these activities also vary and may be quite elusive. Industrial hygiene tools for monitoring air contaminants might not be accurate at low exposure levels, nor capture the multiple agents present in the air. Industrial hygiene exposure thresholds for airborne contaminants were developed for industrial situations where hazards like welding fumes, paint vapors or dust levels are generated from a particular workplace activity. Therefore, monitoring takes place at the source where the hazard is generated such as where a worker is welding or painting or grinding. By contrast, indoor air pollution is a ubiquitous presence that fluctuates often with conditions outside of the control of the workers themselves. Therefore it is difficult to know when and how to sample a particular contaminant. Sometimes the traditional industrial hygiene techniques simply do not work for indoor air quality problems, but a systematic approach to investigating along with

5 some common sense, often do. 3. Finding remedies that work. With the indoor air quality issue, there tend to be two different views on how to approach the problem. Some favor a contaminant-by-contaminant source control approach, while others prefer a "building systems" approach. The "contaminant-specific" proponents argue for research into the identification and isolation of the particular agents causing the problem, before action is taken to eliminate the problem. The "building systems" group argues that proper design and functioning of ventilation systems can alleviate most indoor air quality problems, even if a specific causative agent is not identified. The unions of the AFL-CIO tend to fall into•the "building systems" camp because this approach is more pragmatic and leads to faster results. With members who are.ill, suffering the effects of poor air quality, we do not have the luxury to argue for more research, when potential remedies are available. If we can determine the causative agent, then by all means we should work to eliminate it. But we also want to act to prevent and solve problems even without knowing the particular agent causing the problem. The unions of the AFL-CIO have been successful, in some cases, in pushing employers to take action to address poor indoor air quality. Often times measures such as better design or maintenance of building ventilation systems prove effective in reducing worker complaints of health problems. For example, the Service Employees union represents workers at a mental health facility in Westfield, Massachusetts. The building is a converted factory, and indeed the 87805843

6 first floor of the building is still being used for industrial purposes. Chemicals were seeping from the factory into the mental health facility. Levels of chemicals were detected but did not exceed OSHA's permissible exposure limits. The building had serious problems with its ventilation system, which did not provide enough fresh air and which was installed improperly so that the air intake and exhaust were in the same location. This means that the building intake kept taking in the polluted air from the exhaust fan and recirculating the same polluted air around the building. The union was able to persuade management to increase the air flow and to improve the sealers between the first and second floors of the building. Worker complaints were greatly reduced as a result. Similarly, at a high school with indoor air quality problems in Ridgefield, Connecticut, the union was able to get management to increase air flow, which alleviated the problem. And at a community college in Manchester, Connecticut, the union made recommendations to the employer that led to employee training, adjustments to the ventilation system operations, and new ways to use cleaning chemicals to reduce exposure. The moral of these stories is that practical solutions are at our fingertips now to address many indoor air quality problems. However, the response to date by both government agencies and by building owners and employers has been inadequate, and additional efforts are needed to protect workers and the public from indoor air pollution. Turning to S. 656, the AFL-CIO supports this legislation because we believe the various initiatives proposed in the bill

7 will both give greater visibility to the indoor air quality issue as well as provide for a more vigorous federal response to the indoor air quality problem. We strongly support section 14, the building assessment demonstration program to be conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. NIOSH is the principle federal agency responsible for research on workplace safety and health. NIOSH has conducted hundreds of health hazard evaluations in buildings with indoor air quality problems, which have been very helpful in identifying possible causes of indoor air pollution and recommending possible solutions. We strongly support Section 14's provisions giving NIOSH explicit authority to continue and expand their activities in this area, in addition to authorizing greater resources for these activities. We would suggest that the legislation be amended to include among the "Assessment Elements", an assessment of the building ventilation system, to see if inadequate ventilation or lack of maintenance of the ventilation system could be a contributing cause of indoor air quality problems. NIOSH has found heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system problems to be a cause of poor indoor air quality in more than 50 percent of the buildings they have investigated. It would be unfortunate if the legislation did not specify that NIOSH should take this factor into account when doing its building evaluations. Other elements of the legislation of particular interest to us are the Federal Building Response Plan and Demonstration Program set out in Section 9, along with the requirement that NIOSH develop 87805845

8 .and implement a training program for designated personnel responsible for overseeing federal building indoor air quality programs. While the AFL-CIO supports the Indoor Air Quality Act overall, we have two general concerns about the bill. First, the legislation is more research-oriented and less action-oriented than we would ideally like. As I previously described, practical solutions are available now to address many indoor air quality problems. The technical bulletins authorized by the legislation are a good first step toward developing and disseminating information broadly on steps to remedy indoor air quality problems. Still, we believe that more than recommendations are needed. We believe that the data and the information exists currently to develop enforceable regulations covering indoor air quality in workplaces. We need regulations and technical assistance to employers and workers to set in place a more proactive, preventive response to the indoor air quality problem. Of course research into the causes and effects of indoor air quality problems should continue, but we believe sufficient information exists to develop and implement regulations now, without waiting for the definitive research to be completed. I would like to submit for the record a copy of draft regulations being developed by the state of Washington as an example of the types of practical solutions that are being worked on currently. The AFL-CIO and its affiliated unions have been pushing the occupational Safety and Health Administration to promulgate

9 regulations on indoor air quality in the workplace. The AFL-CIO and 14 of its affiliated unions petitioned OSHA in March 1992 for a comprehensive indoor air quality standard. I would like to submit a copy of the unions' petition for the record. We have proposed that OSHA develop a broad, performance-based standard to require employers to develop a program for dealing with indoor air quality in the workplace. The unions' petition and other petitions on this issue are awaiting a decision by OSHA as to how they will proceed in this area. We would strongly support adding a provision to this legislation directing OSHA to promptly proceed with regulations on workplace indoor air quality. Congress has followed such an approach on numerous occasions, including the Superfund reauthorization's mandate that OSHA develop regulations on hazardous waste operations, the Clean Air Act's mandate that OSHA develop regulations on chemical process safety, and the recent Housing bill's mandate that OSHA develop regulations to protect construction workers from lead exposure. We would be pleased if a similar mandate for indoor air quality regulations was included in S. 656. Our second concern is that the legislation does not fully recognize or appreciate the important role that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has to play in developing a national response to the indoor air quality issue. Workplace exposures are a very important part of the indoor air quality problem. In fact, workers may well be exposed to poor indoor air quality more than any other population. While OSHA's actions in 8'780584'7

10 the area of indoor air quality have been disappointing to date, it is OSHA's rightful mission and OSHA's legal responsibility to protect worker safety and health. The legislation recognizes that OSHA has a role in the federal indoor air quality program, through its language requiring EPA to consult with OSHA over various aspects of the program. However, the legislation plainly puts EPA in the lead, and seems to allow EPA to determine what what should be done in the area of worker safety and health and even to determine what OSHA should do with OSHA's legal authority. While EPA has been more active than OSHA on the indoor air quality issue to date, EPA is not particularly well suited, nor was it established, to deal with workplace issues -- that is OSHA's responsibility. We believe that the legislation could be improved by spelling out more clearly OSHA's authority and responsibilities in this area. We would be happy to work with the committee to assist in developing appropriate language. In sum, we believe S. 656 is an important piece of legislation that will help to bring greater attention to the indoor air quality problem, and to foster greater efforts to promote clean indoor air. The inclusion of our suggestions would greatly strengthen the bill as it pertains to worker safety and health. Thank you for the opportunity to present these views. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.