Tobacco Documents Online

( Contents INTRODUCTION .................................. 1 AGENCIES ...................................... 2 MUNICIPALITIFS ................................... 13 AUTHORITY ..................................... 15 PREDICTIONS .................................... 19 Appendix A: The Comparative Risk Project Workplan ............ A-1 Appendix B: The Politics of Local Tobacco Control ............. B-1

INTRODUCTION This document will put into perspective the various California agencies and their staffs that deal with indoor air pollution in general, and Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) in particular. It can only be considered a "snapshot" in time of the dynamic environment of indoor air regulatory activity and future events may make parts of this document obsolete. It is as accurate as possible regarding the state of affairs in California's regulatory community, as of May 1992. The basis for this report is original research into statutory and regulatory authorities, as well as discussions with the principal Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) members of the three California state regulatory agencies: Cal-EPA with its Office of Environmental Health ' Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), California Department of Health Services (DHS), and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Other agencies, such as Cal-OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) were contacted for information, but their programs appear to have little impact in the IAQ arena. Local regulatory agencies, such as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (AQMD) for the San Francisco Bay Area and the South Coast AQMD for the Los Angeles Area were also examined, but their focus is strictly on outdoor "ambient" air, for the present time. Besides the state and regional agencies, there are municipalities, such as San Francisco and San Luis Obispo, that have either enacted, are in the process of enacting, or have examined and decided not to enact, smoking restrictions. Though a complete list and discussion of such municipalities and their restrictions is beyond the scope of this report, a few selected samples are presented. This report is organized with this Introduction, followed by a discussion of the three principal IAQ agencies and their personnel in the Agencies section. Local activities and their geographic and socioeconomic matrices are discussed in the Municipalities section. Next, the statutory and regulatory authorities, with specific references and citations are presented in the Authority section followed by the admittedly speculative Predictions section. Two appendices conclude this report; a copy of California's Comparitive Risk Workplan and a reprint of an article describing the "politics of local tobacco control". 92067-1 1

AGENCIFS ~ California Air Resources Board (CARBP f ~ fc, eo_1Fp~ > California Department of Health Services (DHS) - > California Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) The relationship between these three agencies is complex, changing and dependent upon the personalities and backgrounds of the individuals involved. It sometimes bears little resemblance to the statutory authority outlined in the Authority section of this report. These relationships are very importait as they directly affect not only the speed and depth of research on IAQ, but also the regulatory scope and content. There are four principal California State agencies that have responsibility for IAQ, but one, Cal-OSHA (California Occupational Safety and Health Administration) is moribund due to severe budget cuts and manpower shortages (it was eliminated under the previous Administration and only resurrected recently). Discussions with Cal-OSHA lead us to believe that there are no present or paanned activities in indoor air in this agency, other than the traditional "Toxic Chemicals" that are mandated by the Federal OSHA. The other three California State Agencies have active, competitive and cooperative research and regulatory programs in indoor air. They are: The two principal agencies in the 1980's that dealt with IAQ were the DHS and CARB. They had a fairly well defined relationship regarding their interpretation of their respective legislative and regulatory authority. Indoor Air was considered part of the overall "air toxics" problem, where air toxics are everything except those pollutants for which a National Ambient Air Quality Standard has been set. In 1991, Governor Wilson created the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) and subordinated CARB to it, while transferring the Hazard Assessment Branch of DHS to become OEHHA of Cal/EPA. But there still remains DHS (outside Cal/EPA's control) with the discussion of which agency (OEHHA or DHS) will perform the risk assessments discussed below. The remainder of the discussion in this History section has been adapted from various materials supplied by the respective agencies. ~ 92067-1 O 2 N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

( Proposition 65 and Air Toxics : A policy flexible enough to deal with the diverse nature of the problems posed by toxic air contaminants has evolved over a number of years. In 1977, the Air Resources Board (ARB) appointed an independent panel of seven experts to review what was known about carcinogenic air pollutants in California. Based on the panel's recommendations, follow- up research was done to explore further the relationship of cancer and air pollution and to determine the extent of the problem in California. In 1982 the Board conducted a number of public meetings to discuss the science related to testing carcinogenic compounds and possible regulatory approaches to identifying and controlling air toxics. The effort to develop a program to deal with ambient toxics culminated in 1983 when the Legislature adopted and the Governor signed California's air toxics law (AB 1807). This legislation became effective in January 1984 and defines California's air toxics program (Health and Safety Code Sections 39650 et seq., Food and Agriculture Code Sections 14021 et seq. In 1986 California passed, by popular initiative, Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water Act (which also included, despite it's name, air exposures). Proposition 65 requires consumers be warned, if they are "exposed" to "chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer" or "chemicals known to the State of California to cause reproductive toxicity". The exact wording as quoted is required to be made known to any persons "exposed" to such chemicals. The key word is "exposed". Since most carcinogens in the atmosphere are present in very low levels, the "exposure" quotient has been interpreted (by DHS) to mean exposure to any risk greater than 1 in 100,000. The only regulatory requirement is notification. There are no control requirements for this act. Proposition 65 has its own Scientific Review Panel (SRP) that determines what substances are on their list. Tobacco smoke (not distinguishing ETS from mainstream smoke) is on the Prop. 65 list, and all restaurants, etc. in California that permit smoking have (or are supposed to have) the warning shown above. Summary of California's Law With the enactment of AB 1807, the 'Legislature created a statutory mandate for the identification and control of air toxic: in California as a separate and complementary program for the control of traditional air pollutants. The legislative intent of the law states that California's program to control toxic air contaminants should: • identify toxic air contamimmts • determine priorities for control • achieve early control • promote advanced control technologies and alternative processes 92067-1 3 N © N N CJ ~ 09 m ~

c • assist local air pollution control districts • provide a consistent level of protection throughout the state. In addition, the legislation declares a clear public policy that emissions of toxic air contaminants should be controlled to levels that prevent harm to public health. It also states that while undisputed scientific evidence may not be available to determine the exact nature and extent of risk from toxic air contaminants, it is necessary to take action to protect public health. The framework of the air toxics program is the two-step process which separates the risk assessment decisions needed for the identification of airborne toxics from the regulatory control decisions which are necessary for risk management. This separation allows the risk assessment decisions about the potential adverse health effects to be made without having to take into consideration simultaneously the regulatory decisions that must follow. The separation also allows the risk management decisions regarding the appropriate level of control to be made without becoming immersed in the science-policy decisions which are a part of the toxics identification process. As a basis for the identification proo:ss, toxic air contaminants are defined as those air pollutants which may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or serious illness or which may pose a present or future hazard to human health. Substances identified by EPA as hazardous air pollutants under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act must be included as toxics in the California program. To ensure that those substances of most concern are evaluated first, the toxics law requires that the following criteria be used for prioritizing compounds: • risk of harm to public health • amount or potential amount of emissions • manner of usage • persistence in the atmosphere • ambient concentrations ARB has developed a list of potentially toxic substances to enter the AB 1807 process using these mandated criteria. Another important component of this legislation is the clarification of roles and responsibilities of governmental enfi.ties for identifying and controlling airborne toxics. The key players in the identification phase are the Department of Health Services (DHS), the Air Resources Board (ARB), the Department of Food and Agriculture, and a nine- member independent scientific committee called the Scientific Review Panel (SRP). In the control measure phase the ARB, working closely with local air pollution control districts, is responsible for developing control measures for all identified toxic air 92067-1 4

{ contaminants except those used in pesticides. Pesticides are evaluated in a similar process by the Department of Food and Agriculture. Following the ARB adoption of measures to control a specific toxic cwmpound, the local districts must adopt equal or more stringent regulations for the stationary sources in their jurisdiction. Regulations to control airborne toxic emissions from mobile sources are the responsibility of the ARE. Ranking Compounds In January 1984 the ARB endorsed a prioritization scheme for ranking potentially toxic substances based on the criteria spelled out in the law. This approach placed compounds of concern in California in two categories-one for substances of significant concern and the second for substances of potential concern because of insufficient information. Farly in 1986 ARB staff recommended changes to the ranking system adding a third category. The first category now contains those substances designated by the Board as toxic air contaminants. The second group includes those compounds currently under review or waiting to be reviewed in the toxics identification process. Category three contains compounds of current interest in California which have insufficient data to proceed at this time. Identification Phase Once the ARB and DHS select a compound to enter the toxics identification phase, the ARB circulates a request for relevant information on the health effects of the compound from the public. Approximately two months later the ARB formally requests DHS to evaluate the available health effects information for the candidate compound and to prepare recommendations regarding effects. As a basis for its recommendations, DHS reviews all available scientific data associated with the health effects of the compoind and makes an assessment of the health risks posed by exposure to the substance. This evaluation includes a discussion of whether a threshold exposure level exists below which effects do not occur. Simultaneous with preparation of the DHS health evaluation, ARB prepares a comprehensive exposure assessment including information on the compound's usage, emissions or potential emissions, persistence in the environment, ambient concentrations and present or potential public exposure. These two segments-the exposure assessment and the health effects evaluation- become the risk assessment report which is the technical foundation for determining; if the compound should be listed as a toxic air contaminant in California. The ARB makes copies of the draft report available for public comment before it is submitted to the Scientific Review Panel. 92067-1 5

t The new step in the process is the submittal of the report including the public comments and staff responses to the SRP. The SRP reviews the scientific procedures and methods used, the health and exposure data, and the report's conclusions. The SRP can request that ARB or DHS staffs correct deficiencies in the report, so that when the report is presented to the ARB for formal identification, the Board can be confident that the information in the report is scientifically sound. At the conclusion of its review, the SRP prepares recommendations for consideration by the Board during its decision-making. The final decision regarding the listing of a candidate substance as a toxic air contaminant is made by the Air Resources Board after a public hearing. If the Board concurs with the findings that a compound is a toxic substance and does pose a health risk, the compound is listed by regulation as a toxic air contaminant in the California Administrative Code. If the scientific evidence indicates a threshold exposure level exists for the compound below which no significant adverse health effects are anticipated, this will also be specified by the ARB as a part of the regulation. The time period for this identification phase is approximately 14 months. Figure 1 graphically presents the formal steps in this phase- Control Measure Phase Once a compound has been listed as a toxic air contaminant, the control decision or risk management phase of the air toxics program begins. With the help of local air pollution control districts and in consultation with affected sources and the interested public, ARB prepares a report on the need and appropriate degree of regulation for an identified toxic air contaminant. Some of the same subjects included in the identification report- emissions, exposure, persistence-will be included in this regulatory needs report in expanded detail plus information on: • numbers and contribution of sources • controls for such sources • effectiveness of measures • substitute compounds • adverse impacts • magnitude of risk This regulatory needs report is the basis for the Air Resources Board decisions on the kinds of toxics control measures needed to reduce emissions of airborne toxics from stationary sources. This report also may serve as the basis for adoption of regulations to control toxic emissions from mobile sources such as setting emission standards for vehicular sources or standards for motor vehicle fuels. 92067-1 6

( Priorit'vation of compounds ARB dcvelops ARB seleces ARE requests r-* exposure data ARB publishes wsdidste DHS health dreftreport compound evelusiion L DHS deveAops + ~ I evaluaiton ARB requests health info from public FIGURE 1. How ARB identifies a toxic air contaminant (TAC). sss/shb2-001 SRP reviews repoIt SRP prepaes findings ARB decision to list as TAC ARB holds public hearing N O N N 7 ~~ W~s~J W N

l As a part of the regulatory decision-making, the law requires the Board to consider whether a threshold for significant effects has been identified for the compound. For substances which have a threshold, sources are required to operate in a manner that ensures the threshold is not exceeded. Where a threshold cannot be demonstrated, control measures are identified that reduce emissions to the lowest achievable level unless an alternative level of emission reduction is necessary to prevent an endangerment of public health. It is expected that the preparation of each regulatory needs report will take an average of twelve months. Depending on the complexity of the investigation on a particular substance, it may be possible to also develop a control measure during this time, if appropriate. Within six months of the ARB decision to adopt a control measure for stationary sources, local air pollution control districts are required to adopt regulations that are at least equally as effective. Local district new source review rules must also include requirements for the control of new or modified sources of toxic air contaminants. Figure 2 graphically presents the sequence of this phase. Table 1 itemizes the procedural steps in both the Identification and Control phase. ACTIONS TAKEN SO FAR The first action the Air Resources Board (ARB) took to establish the program was to create a ranking scheme for prioritizing possible toxic substances. Based on research studies and a review of compounds either listed or under consideration by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the ARB narrowed the field to approximately 50 compounds of concern using the criteria set out in the law: Risk of harm to public health Amount of emissions Manner of usage Persistence in the atmosphere Ambient concentrations in California Substance Selection and Review At its January 1984 meeting, the ARB approved the initial ranking of compounds and endorsed a schedule for starting compounds through the review process. Since then, review of a new substance has been initiated roughly every two months. The substances that are currently formally entered into the risk assessment phase of the air toxics program are: 92oc7•1 8 N C N N CD ~ 09 ~ GD W

c TABLE 1. Key steps in the identification and control of toxic air contaminants. Compounds Identification Phase • Selection of candidate substances. • Request for health effects information from public. • ARB request to DHS for health effects evaluation. • DHS prepares health effects assessment while ARB compiles exposure data. • Publication of the risk assessment report containing exposure and health effects information. • Public review of draft report. • SRP review of the report. Revisions if deficiencies are found. • SRP findings prepared and submitted to ARB. • ARB public hearing and decision on candidate toxic air contaminant. Control Measures Phase • Investigation of control strategies by ARB working with local air districts and the interested public. • ARB prepares draft report on the need and appropriate degree of control. • ARB holds public consultation meeting on draft report. • ARB public meeting or hearing on the regulatory needs report and decision on control strategies. G" • ARB adoption of control measures for stationary sources, if appropriate. • Local air districts propose stationary source regulations based on ARB adopted measures. • Local district public hearing and adoption of equally or more stringent regulations. • ARB development and adoption of mobile source regulations, if appropriate. 9 N O N N GD ~ ~ ~

C ARB/APCDS ARB publishes ARB holds ARB adopts APCDs propose APCDs adopt invesrigatecontuol 4 regulstor9 ~ public heering TAC control staUmlaiy source regulations meature options needcreport measvres reguletions ARB proposcs vehicular ARB adopts regulations regulations FiGURE 2. How TAC control measures are selected. 10 ..1.hb2ora

C asbestos nzene cadmium carbon tetrachloride chlorinated dioxins/furans chloroform ethylene dibromide ethylene dichloride l~yi lene oxide hexavalent chromium inorganic arsenic methylene chloride trichloroethylene vinyl chloride Control decisions have been made and are either implemented or about to be implemented for the compounds that are under in 1. Health Effects Evaluation Once a substance has been selected for evaluation, the ARB requests the Department of Health Services (DHS) to review the available health effects information on the substance. As a part of this review, DHS evaluates the health effects data, examines the biological characteristics of the substance, and estimates the probable incidence of an adverse health effect to humans at a given exposure level. In addition, DHS determines whether the substance has a threshold exposure level below which there will be no adverse human health effects. In cases where there is no threshold, DHS provides the range of risk to humans which can be expected from current or anticipated exposure. At the same time that DHS is doing its health evaluation, the ARB staff compiles information on exposure levels. This includes information on uses, sources, and emissions, as well as concentrations of the substance in the ambient air, the locations where concentrations are greatest, its persistence in the atmosphere, and what is the present or potential public exposure to the substance. These two segments-the DHS health effects evaluation and the ARB public exposure assessment-are published by ARB as the risk assessment report. Because these reports provide a comprehensive analysis of the estimated risk to public health, they are ultimately used by the Board as the technical basis for making its decision whether the compound should be listed as a toxic air contaminant. 7V O N 92067-1 11 ~ .~ C9 0?

< Scientific Review Panel (SRP) The SRP is composed of nine outside advisors to the ARB. It currently is chaired by Dr. James Pitts, with members from a number of universities, including Dr. Stanton Glantz of UCSF. The SRP is responsible for reviewing the scientific procedures and methods used in the report, the health and exposure data, and the report's conclusions. During its approximate two month review, the Panel must make a finding regarding the report's acceptability of deficiency. Where a report is found to be deficient, it is returned to ARB and DHS for revision. Comparative Risk Project CaIIEPA's OEHHA is embarking on a new planning process for overall protection of California's environment. This process is embodied in it's "Comparative Risk Project", which is currently underway. It's intended to "obtain scientific judgments on the relative value of investments" in different environmental activities. This far-reaching project is a complex maze of committees and public access points that is better described in the Comparative Risk Workplan shown in Appendix A. The significant committee, with regard to Indoor Air will be the Human Health Advisory Committee. This author is now a member of this committee (scheduled to have about 20 members) that has yet to meet. The schedule shown in Appendix A has not been kept but we anticipate meetings shortly.

MUh'ICIPAi.TtTF.S As discussed in the following Predictions section, we believe that local municipalities will be where the focus of indoor air regulations will be in the upcoming years, absent a large media "event' that forces either statewide or federal regulations. An example of this is shown in Appendix B, where a reprintt from Dr. Stanton Glantz describes the "politics of local tobacco control". Accordingly, we examine here two municipalities and their approaches to IAQ and smoking, as well as providing a brief description of the areas. San Luis Obisno San Luis Obispo is a small (42,000 population) city in the central coast area of California, 100 miles north of Santa Barbara and 200 miles south of San Francisco. It's two principal industries are tourism and California Polytechnic State University (16,000 students). The university dominates the activities and politics of the town. Elements of the university community were instrumental in getting the most restrictive smoking ordinance in California passed, last year. Smoking is not allowed in any public restaurant, bar, etc. The effects of this ordinance on the local economy have been hotly debated throughout the state (and in tbe San Luis Obispo area), with no clear indication of whether the "decrease" in business was due to the recession, or the ordinance. None- the-less, SLO's ordinance could be copied by other like minded communities, if there is sufficient political will to do so. San Francisco San Francisco is a medium large (727,000 population) city that has a unique distinction of having more restaurants per capita than anywhere else in the country. In addition to tourism, San Francisco is a regional dining area for the entire Bay Area (5 million population), which accounts for such a large number of restaurants. It also has the deserved reputation as being among the most liberal of all cities in the United States. On May 18, 1992, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors defeated an ordinance that called for 60 percent non-smoking seating in all restaurants, with an increase to 75 percent in two years. Even supervisors with an admitted "allergy" to cigarette smoke said "Now is not the time to disturb the status quo for the city and county of San Francisco. We can't risk the loss of' any more businesses." (Supervisor Willie Kennedy). This does not preclude their enacting such an ordinance in the future, but the restaurant lobby is very powerful in San Francisco and is sure to,oppose it. 92067-1 . 13

n i The two examples discussed above show the different approaches that have been taken with regard to smoking regulations in California. On the one hand, a small, liberal ;own enacts a very restrictive law on smoking and fierce debate arises as to its effects on business. On the other hand, a large city fails to enact a less restrictive ordinance (even though its elected officials wish to) for fear of adversely affecting a major business in depressed economic times. In both cases, there was no debate as to the "health" effects of ETS, as it was assumed that it was "bad". The driving reason for defeat of the San Francisco ordinance was the fear of the political fallout from a powerful industry (the restaurant lobby). If so, then local ordinances will be enacted in those areas where restaurants do not have the political clout that they do in San Francisco and where there are sufficient forces (local activists or groups) that are pushing for them. Defeating the ordinances (or repealing them, a much more difficult proposition) will take either sound economic studies or vocal opposition at the local levels.

( AUTHORTTY This section outlines the pertinent portions of California Laws and Regulations that affect Indoor Air Quality and ETS. While rot comprehensive, the majority of the authorities under which California's regulatory agencies (Cal-OSHA, DHS, CARB & OEHHA) operate, with regard to IAQ, ETS & "air toxics" are summarized. Current Laws and Reeulations Health & Safety Code Division 1, Part 1, Chapter 2, Article 9.5, (commencing with Section 426) Health & Safety Code Division 26, Air Resources, Part 1, General Provisions and Definitions, Chapter 1, Findings, Declarations, and Intent. -declares that since air quality is a regional problem knowing no political boundaries, that the state should be divided into regional air basins. -the local and regional authorities have the primary responsibility for control of air pollution from all sources other than vehicular sources, but the state board can take control of activities in any area wherein it determines that the local or regional authority has failed to meet its responsibilities by this or any other provision of law. -declares the control of vehicular sources, with exceptions, shall be the responsibility of the Siate Air Resources Board. Health & Safety Code Division 26, Air Resources, Part 2, State Air Resources Board 92067-1 15

k Chapter 1, Findings, Declarations, and Intent declares the intent of the Legislature that the board, in addition to having the responsibility for controlling emissions fi•om vehicular sources, shall coordinate, encourage, and review the efforts of all levels of government as they affect air quality. Chapter 3, General Powers and Duties declares the board shall adopt standards, rules, and regulations necessary for the proper execution of the powers and duties granted to and imposed upon the state board by H&SC and any other provision of law. -declares the state board to be the air pollution control agency for all purposes set forth in federal law. -the state board may appoint advisory groups and committees. -the state board shall adopt standards of ambient air quality for each air basin. -the state board shall inventory sources of air pollution in the air basins of the state and determine the kinds and quantity of air pollutants. -identify and classify each air basin as to its attainment or nonattainment status with respect to any state ambient air quality standard. Chapter 3.5 Toxic Air Contaminants. Because public good can be endangered by emission into air of mutagenic, carcinogenic, teratogenic, and otherwise toxic substances, it is public policy that emissions of toxic air contaminants be controlled to levels not harmful. Article 1. F•indings, Declarations, & Intent Declares that the state board has adopted regulations regarding the identification and control of toxic air contaminants, but that the statutory authority of the state board, the relationship of its proposed program to the activities of other agencies, and the role of scientific and public review of the regulations should be clarified by the legislature. -While there is a statewide program to control [criteria] pollutants subject to national and state ambient air quality standards, there is no specific statutory framework in this division for the evaluation and control of substances which may be toxic air contaminants. -This chapter creates a program which specifically addresses the evaluation and control of potentially toxic substances emitted into the air, and 92067-1 16

declares that such a program is necessary and desirable in order to provide technical and scientific assistance to the districts, ... to identify the toxic air contaminants of concern and determine the priorities of their control. Article 3, Identification of Toxic Air Contaminants The State Department of Health Services shall, upon request of the board, evaluate the health effects of and prepare recommendations regarding substances. -The state board shall and DHS shall give priority to the evaluation and regulation of substances based on factors related to the risk of harm to public health, amount or potential amount of emissions,.... Section 39660.5 Assessment of Indoor Environments In evaluating the level of potential human exposure to toxic air contaminants, the state board shall assess that exposure in indoor environments as well as in ambient air conditions. -The board shall consult with DHS pursuant to the program of indoor environmental aualitv established under Article 9.5 (commencing with Section 426) of Chauter 2 of Part 1 of Division 1 of Health & Safety Code concerning which potential toxic air contaminants may be found in the indoor environment and on the best methodology for measuring exposure to these contaminants. -When the state identifies pollutants indoors, it shall refer data on that exposure and suspected source to various state agencies. The board shall identify the relative contribution to total exposure to the contaminant from indoor concentrations, taking into account both ambient and indoor air environments. Health & Safety Code Division 26, Part 6. Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment. Chapter 2. Section 44320 Any facility that manufactures, formulates, uses, or releases any of the substances listed in the following Section 44321, and falls under various other guidelines, is covered by "AB2588" and required to prepare and submit to the district an emissions inventory plan. After an inventory is submitted and reviewed, facilities are categorized by priority, for the purposes of health risk assessment. 92067-1 17 N O N N ~ ~ ~ ~ O N

l Section 44321 For emissions inventories, the state board shall compile and maintain a list of substances to be inventoried, that contain but is not limited to the following...(c)the candidate list of potential toxic air contaminants and the list of designated toxic air contaminants prepared by the state board pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 39660) of Chapter 3.5 of Part 7...(d),(e), & (f). California Code or Regulations Title 17-Public Health, Division 3-Air Resources, Chapter 1-Air Resources Board, Subchapter 3.6. Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation, Appendix A. - -This "AB2588 List of Substances", as required by H&SC Section 44321, contains two categories, Category 1, those required to be included on the list, and Category 2, those which may be removed according to certain criteria. Environmental Tobacco Smoke is a Category 1 member of this list. -Title ,17-- Public Health, Division 3-Air Resources, Chapter 1--Air Resources Board, subchapter 7.6 Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines, Appendix A-I and A-2 is list of chemical substances which may pose a threat to public health when present in the ambient air. Environmental Tobacco Smoke appears on Appendix A-1, Substances for which Emissions Must Be Quantified. Pendine legislation having to do with IAO & ETS Legislative Index: OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETY: tobacco products: workplace prohibitions, AB2667. AIR POLLUTION, indoor air pollution: public exposure: state action plan: report, AB212 TOBACCO & TOBAC:CO PRODUCTS: second-hand smoke, SB 93; employees smoking during nonwork hours and at locations other than worksite, AB 2531; smoking at the workplace, AB 2262. 92067-1 18 N G N N td ~ ~ O W

PREDICTIONS The current status of IAQ in California is in flux. It is unclear at this time as to whether or not IAQ regulations will be passed, and if so by what agency and under what authority. There appears to be a significant amount of bureaucratic "turf" guarding going on in IAQ, in particular between CARB and DHS. Discussions with the principals in all three agencies (CARB, DHS, OEHHP.) lead to the following conclusions: _ • California will continue to do research on IAQ. In particular a vigorous research plan by CAF:B's Indoor Air Division is anticipated. E'I'S does not appear to be a major focus of this research. •' Under its toxic air contaminants law (AB 1807), California will perform a risk assessment for EtS. • The risk assessment for ETS will probably be performed by OEHHA, under the direction of Dr. George Alexeef. There is presently no time-line for completion of this risk assessment. • Once the ETS risk assessment is completed (and accepted by the Scientific Review Panel) a time-clock will start that n~ya have ETS regulations within 24 to 26 months. This time-clock could be affected by resources within the agencies, outcome of the Comparative Risk Project and external political pressure. • CARB will probably delay any new IAQ regulations until the results of the Comparative Risk Project are known. • I.oczl municipalities will continue to enact their own regulations, based upon the following factors: The dynamics of the local political scene, i.e. what local activist groups are present and how powerful are they. Any and all "government" (federal and state) documents (including a completed California ETS risk assessment) that will support (or oppose) the position of the local ordinances. . 92067-1 19

l - The local political power of the affected industry. San Francisco is the pertinent example here. Despite a very activist Board of Supervisors, the restaurant industry's "economics" prevented ETS regulations. If one were to asked to predict the earliest possible occurrence of a California State regulation for ETS, a suggested time might be of the order of 2-3 years under the present set of laws, with considerable public comment allowed during that time period. This, of course, could change if a Federal or State law suddenly was passed that mandated regulations at an earlier time. It is very difficult to see, at this point and under the present circumstances, how any Stab: regulation of ETS could occur prior to 2-3 years from now.