Tobacco Documents Online

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