Tobacco Documents Online

.r Statement of Hoy R. Bohanon, Jr, PE to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE CONTROL I am Hoy Bohanon. I am a professional engineer employed by R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. I have studied indoor air quality for the past three years, and was involved with many aspects of building management in the ten years prior to that. Today I will talk with you about engineering solutions for good indoor air quality. I will point out that the solutions proposed by OSHA for indoor air quality should be evenly applied to all substances including environmental tobacco smoke. There is no need for singular restrictive provisions applied only to sniokers, either as workers or as customers. Specifically, I will provide details supporting the following three points: 1. There is no reason to single out environmental tobacco smoke from all other indoor air constituents. 2. Properly ventilated spaces have very low levels of indoor air contaminants 3. OSHA's proposed rules for environmental tobacco smoke are costly and unnecessary 1. There is no reason to single out environmental tobacco smoke from all other indoor air constituents. Without citing any data to indicate the effects of dilution ventilation on environmental tobacco smoke concentrations, OSHA maintains that dilution ventilation is inadequate to address environmental tobacco smoke control. Dilution ventilation, however, has long been recognized as an effective way to reduce contaminant concentrations and add to indoor comfort. The concept is very simple; if you burn your breakfast toast, you open the window and turn on the fan. There are engineering methods to do the same thing with modern HVAC systems. Engineers generally agree that dilution ventilation and filtration are acceptable methods for minimizing concentrations of substances in the indoor air. It is therefore puzzling that the Proposed Rule quickly dismisses engineering controls as a viable alternative for control of environmental tobacco smoke levels. OSHA did not investigate or discuss the many types of controls that are available. 1

It is also puzzling that OSHA dismisses dilution ventilation as an adequate environmental tobacco smoke control, but mandates it to control a host of substances such as benzene, formaldehyde and styrene, which OSHA identifies as suspected carcinogens within this same Proposed Rule. According to OSHA, these substances are emitted not only from cigarettes, but also from building materials, interior furnishings, appliances, and office equipment and suppiies. In the Proposed Rule, OSHA has developed several lists of compounds identified as Tables 11-2, III-1 and 111-2. Many of the chemicals in OSHA's list of compounds "Identified in Tobacco Smoke" are also typical compounds found in offices. In fact, 29 of the 43 compounds in tobacco smoke can also be found as emissions from building materials, interior furnishings, office equipment and supplies. Amines or alkanes can be found in adhesives, floor coverings, paints, caulking materials, ceiling tiles or particle board. How can dilution ventilation be the accepted engineering control for chemicals found building materials, furnishings, office equipment and supplies and not be acceptable for the identical chemicals found in environmental tobacco smoke?? In fact, OSHA concluded that dilution ventilation can effectively control occupational exposure to formaldehyde. OSHA's final rule for occupational exposure to formaldehyde established 8-hour time-weighted average exposure levels of 0.75 ppm or below. The rule describes the use of dilution ventilation as the primary means of control in the apparel industry to lower the exposure levels from 1.00 ppm to 0.75 ppm. In the Federal Register, the discussion on the apparel industry states: "...the workplace is treated like an office or store and air is recirculated rather than exhausted and replaced, allowing formaldehyde concentrations to build.......A relatively simple solution to this problem of air stagnation is to install roof exhaust fans." The exhaust fan specified by OSHA is a means of using dilution ventilation to lower the formaldehyde concentrations. Certainly, the primary means of contaminant control in the office is dilution ventilation. Many indoor air quality problems can be solved by designing, installing and operating HVAC equipment with proper rates of ventilation. The ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62-1989 (ASHRAE 1989) entitled "Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality" addresses proper ventilation in controlling indoor air problems. The standard's purpose is "to specify minimum ventilation rates and indoor air quality that will be acceptable to human occupants and are intended to minimize the potential for adverse health effects." 2

The Ventilation Rate Procedure does consider smoking activity in this procedure. Mr. John E. Janssen, an ASHRAE fellow and chairman of the committee charged with writing the ASHRAE 62-1989 Standard presented a written statement to Congress in 1991. "Research on tobacco-smoke odor at Yale's John B. Pierce Laboratory has also shown that with today's reduced smoking rate, 15 cfm of outdoor air will dilute environmental tobacco smoke to a level acceptable to 70 percent of the people entering an occupied space .... Other calculations on the tobacco-smoke perception of non-smoking occupants in a room for 15 minutes with smokers show that non-smoking occupants will register 90-percent acceptance under the assumed conditions. Thus Standard 62-1989 appears to be able to control tobacco smoke odor under minimum smoking conditions." For conditions suspected to be above minimum smoking conditions, higher ventilation rates were specified. Bars are required to have twice the ventilation rate (30 cfm/person). The rate for smoking lounges is four times the minimum (60 cfm / person). OSHA has specified dilution ventilation to be a solution to IAQ problems in the workplace. We agree. OSHA maintains that dilution ventilation will reduce the concentrations of chemicals found in the indoor air. We agree. For some unknown reason, OSHAA concludes that if the source of the chemical is tobacco smoking, ventilation will not be effective. We strongly disagree. It appears that OSHAA is not making decisions based upon scientific information, but is making a moral judgment. A.s an analogy, if we are on an elevator that has a capacity of 1200 pounds, and the current load weighs 1150 pounds, it matters not if the next person to board the elevator is a felon or a priest; the elevator is overloaded. If an indoor environment is at its capacity, you raise that capacity by ventilating, that is, changing the air - air changes. With the many assaults on the air indoors, the only way that smoking can overload the air is if the ventilation is inadequate. Evidence shows that for most cases, levels of ventilation established to handle other constituents will also handle smoking activity. There is no technical reason for making different rules for different sources of indoor chemicals. There is no reason to single out environmental tobacco smoke from all other indoor air constituents All evidence shows that: 2. Properly ventilated spaces have very low levels of indoor air contaminants. For a number of years, R. J. Reynolds has had an interest in testing the effectiveness of ventilation in real-world environments. To assist OSHA in understanding the availability and effectiveness of engineering controls, we have presented OSHA with a number of engineering papers examining concentrations of chemicals in the indoor environment. The data show that real world ~ ~ ~ 3 ~3 ~ ~

concentrations of chemicals, regardless of source, can be reduced by dilution ventilation and filtration. These controls have been shown to be effective in various types of indoor environments, and such controls can be used to effectively minimize nonsmoker exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in virtually every workplace under OSILN's jurisdiction. These papers and data are unique in three aspects: 1.. Ventilation rates were measured in addition to measuring the indoor concentrations of various chemicals. 2.. Smoking activity was assessed by counting people and cigarettes 3.. The chemicals measured were truly representative of the presence of envi.ronmental tobacco smoke in a quantitative sense. Before reviewing the results of the testing, let me elaborate on these three points. If you are to study concentrations of environmental tobacco smoke for purposes of characterizing those concentrations, factors that affect those concentrations must be measured. So the questions are: 1. Were ventilation rates measured in addition to measuring the indoor concentrations of various chemicals? In order to evaluate data from an indoor air test, for perspective, meaning, or certainly before using it to represent a typical national condition, one must know the ventilation conditions. Why do I say that? Why can't one just walk into a room, take a reading on a meter, and then generalize on the basis of that data? Because, as shown in slide 3: I`J ~ 4 LO I ~ ~ LO UO

Steady State Relationship Between Ventilation and Concentration for Constant Source Strength Ventilation SLIDE 3 Ventilation has a major effect on the concentrations of chemicals measured in an indoor space. A nonventilated area can have concentrations from identical sources that are several times higher than those observed in a ventilated space. Many occupational settings are well ventilated, and almost all have the potential to be. A properly ventilated office will have on average at least twice the air change that. a residence will have. A restaurant should be as much as 10 times that of an office. Ventilation prevents buildup of contaminants and does not act in a linear fashion, but is very dependent upon air exchange quantities. The effect of ventilation cannot be discounted or ignored in measuring concentrations in the indoor air. The second important question is: 2. Was smoking activity assessed by counting people and cigarettes? If environmental tobacco smoke is a subject of study, smoking activity must be measured. A situation where 100% of people observed are smoking 6 cigarettes an hour is extraordinary and cannot be generalized as a typical workplace exposure. Likewise, trying to measure environmental tobacco smoke where no smoking occurs is similarly misleading. The third question is: 5

3. Do the chemicals measured represent the presence of environmental tobacco _ smoke in a quantitative sense? Measures should include a particulate marker such as WPM, FPN,1 or solanesol, and the vapor phase marker 3-Ethenylpyridine. Nicotine measurements can give a qualitative indication that smoking activity has occurred, but that activity may have been days ago. It does not necessarily indicate the presence of smoke. RSP and CO have many sources in addition to tobacco smoke and are most useful quantitatively in a controlled laboratory environment. The data that OSHA has received from RJR includes 4 specific tests that I will review. All of the tests meet the criteria that I have just mentioned; ventilation rates are measured, smoking activity is quantified, and an array of environmental tobacco smoke indicators are used. The first test was conducted in 1991 and was submitted to OSHA in response to its request for information. The test was conducted in order to examine the effect of smoking activities on indoor air quality. Four buildings were selected. Two of the buildings had constant volume HVAC • systems that were approximately 35 years old. The office areas were primarily private offices. The other two were modern buildings. These newer buildings employed VAV systems and the offices areas were set-up into an open cubicle type arrangement. Two types of smoking policies were in place within the buildings. Smoking was unrestricted in two buildings and restricted to smoking lounges in the other two. 38 substances were sampled in the four buildings. Ventilation rates in the two newer systems were monitored and controlled to essentially the ASHRAE recommended minimum rate of 20 cfm/person. Comparing the results of the two new buildings ventilated at the ASHRAE minimum rate, Results of Indoor Air Quality Sampling Compound Smoking Unrestricted Smoking Restricted TLV Carbon Dioxide (ppm) 604 575 5000 10 times lower Methylene chloride <1.1 8 174,000 20,000 times lower Toluene 19 21 377,000 10,000 times lower Styrene 1.9 0.8 213,000 100,000 times lower 6

Formaldehyde (ppm) 0.034 0.033 0.75 20 times lower Compound Smoking Unrestricted Smoking Restricted TLV I Carbon monoxide (ppm) <1.0 2.4 25 10 times lower ~ Benzene 4.8 1.7 32,000 10,000 times lower Nicotine 2.3 <0.1 500 200 times lower RSP 30 5 5000 The second test submitted to the current docket was designed to evaluate the effects of ventilation rates and distance on environmental tobacco smoke exposure in a large office building; This test measured concentrations of many environmental tobacco smoke indicators in several areas on a floor in a large high rise office building where smoking is unrestricted. As a part of the test, outside air ventilation rates were varied from no mechanically delivered outside air to outside air dampers wide open. Conclusions of this test were: For open office areas on one floor of a large, modern office building with variable air volume (VAV) heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) technology where 31% of the occupants were smokers who each consumed, on average, 9.97 cigarettes per 7%a hour work-day: ~ Changes in ventilation rate, smoking rate, or distance from smoker were accompanied by measurable changes in environmental tobacco smoke concentration. ~ Statistical models indicated that ventilation, smoking activity, and distance from smokers are all significant factors in explaining levels of environmental tobacco smoke. The result of this study are consistent with predictions of models that are based upon fundamental physical principles. These results indicate that increased ventilation or smoker separation can reduce environmental tobacco smoke exposure. ~ Concentrations of most environmental tobacco smoke indicators varied inversely with ventilation rate and directly with smoking activity. These indicators were nicotine, 3-Ethenylpyridine (3-EP), ultraviolet particulate matter (UVPM), and fluorescent particulate matter (FPM). ~ Such behavior is consistent with predictions from physical models relating ventilation and contaminants. 7

I ~ However, RSP - one of the more commonly used indicators of exposure - did not exhibit this relation. The absence of both ventilation effect and smoking activity effect is theorized to be due to RSP originating from other sources. This result underscores the limitations associated with this indicator. The third paper presented examined the effects of ventilation and separation of smokers and nonsmokers on exposure of nonsmokers to environmental tobacco smoke in an office using personal and area monitoring techniques. Ithru 6 Designated Smoking Area Sarnpling Locatioru SlthruSlO ~ Locations where cigarettes µere smoked SLIDF 17 - 5500 Square Foot Office Space Due to the apparent lack of information regarding the relationships of dilution ventilation and ETS compound levels, R.J. Reynolds conducted a test. The results of that test clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of ventilation and separation as engineering control techniques. The term separation in these tests means establishing an area for smokers and an area for nonsmokers. It does not mean separate enclosed rooms. A 5500 square foot office area was tested. The space was served by one dedicated HVAC system. The HVAC system was a constant volume reheat system with capability to provide outside air by opening an economizer damper. 8

The test protocol was to measure iiidoor concentrations of chemicals in the space for two days with no smoking allowed. Then for eight following days, 160 cigarettes were smoked each day. For the first four days no outside air was provided by the HVAC system by keeping the damper closed. The following four days, the ventilation system damper was opened to provide outside air. For two days under each condition, smoking was restricted to a designated area located near the return air vent. This designated area is shown as shaded on slide 17. Note that the separate area was not enclosed by walls and doors. Personal monitors were used to measure nicotine and 3-EP. The results for specific markers show that all levels are low. ~ Carbon monoxide levels were not affected by smoker/non-smoker separation. Carbon monoxide levels were affected by cigarette smoking activity, outside air levels and outside air ventilation rates. Indoor carbon monoxide levels exceeded outdoor levels by approximately 2 ppm during the test days of cigarette smoking and no outside air ventilation. Carbon monoxide levels inside were not statistically different from outside levels during days of cigarette smoking with the outside air damper open. ~ Nicotine levels were most affected by smoker/non-smoker separation. Nicotine levels were slightly affected by outside air ventilation rates. Personal nicotine sampling measurements are not significantly different than work area sample measurements. ~' RSP levels were not statistically different (p< 0.05) in smoking/nonsmoking locations nor in either mode of ventilation. The average RSP levels for the test duration, were 32 µg/m3 and 29 µg/m3 for smoking and nonsmoking, respectively. In fact, RSP levels inside were not different from the outside concentrations of 30 µg/m3• ~ UVPM and FPM levels were found to be good tracers of environmental tobacco smoke particles. [SLIDE 221 These particles were found to be at essentially the same levels in the office area as the outside air during days when the outside air dampers were opened. 10 Environmental tobacco smoke RSP (based on solanesol) were affected by ventilation rates and found to be below the limit of detection on all days when the dampers were opened. The conclusions: 9

i • During days where outside air dampers were opened and smoking was restricted to the designated area; carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, RSP, and UVPNI levels were found to be essentially the same as outdoor air levels. ~ Overall levels are low when compared to OSl-LA's estimates of environmental tobacco smoke concentrations or exposures in the workplace. 0 Under all conditions the levels are many times lower than PEL limits, and indeed even below the limits set for outdoor air. 0 By understanding these relationships and applying separation and ventilation procedures, exposure to environmental tobacco smoke can be virtually eliminated in nonsmoking areas. If ventilation can be effective in this case, then the technology is a valid engineering control, and should not be discounted by OSHA. This research was designed to test the effect of engineering controls in effectively minimizing environmental tobacco smoke concentrations. Additional research is needed to determine optimal ventilation rates and separation distances between smokers and • nonsmokers. The fourth paper deals with the effects of ventilation and filtration on reduction of exposure in restaurants. OSHA requested specific information regarding bars and restaurants. RJR has submitted data and analysis that demonstrate the effectiveness of ventilation and filtration in reducing environmental tobacco smoke components in bars and restaurants. These reductions were possible with existing standard technologies. For all areas of the restaurants, the concentrations are very low. For the nonsmoking sections, concentrations are significantly lower than the smoking sections. In order to test the effectiveness of HVAC technology in reducing environmental tobacco smoke concentrations in the real world, we sought out restaurants that served a lot of smoking patrons, and had poorly performing HVAC systems. A test and balance contractor (a contractor certified in measuring HVAC systems) evaluated and documented the performance of the existing ventilation systems. Air flow rates on kitchen exhaust hoods, make-up air units, HVAC supply air flow rates, and outside air flow rates were measured. We then made cost-effective changes projected to lead to better indoor air quality. These changes included increasing outside air ventilation rates, and in some cases, improving filtration. Air samples were taken during operating hours in both the smoking and non- smoking sections of the restaurant. Before we changed anything in the HVAC system we sampled for seven consecutive days. After we modified the HVAC system, we again sampled for seven consecutive days. 10

SLIDE 26 - Diagram of Restaurant Tested Slide 26 shows a layout of the restaurant with the highest levels measured. The smoking section concentrations were measured in room C. The nonsmoking section concentrations were measured in room A. The results were dramatic reductions in RSP in both the smoking and nonsmoking sections. We used the solanesol method developed by Dr. Ogden et al. (Ogden, 1990, 1992) to analyze the contribution of environmental tobacco smoke to respirable particulate matter. The environmental tobacco smoke-RSP levels were reduced from a median of 110 µg/m3 to a median of approximately 20 µg/m3 . Reductions in median values of particles were found to be a direct result of increased ventilation with outside air and the electronic air cleaner installed on the HVAC unit serving the smoking area. In cases where high levels of carbon dioxide, nicotine, 3 EP, and particulate matter were found, reductions were achieved. In other cases, better control of thermal comfort resulted. Positive comments were received from both customers and restaurant owners after the changes were made. SUMMARY In summary, when one looks at all of the data presented, the conclusions are clear. 11

•All markers and indicators fit the theoretical ventilation - concentration model at high concentrations. •For very low levels of any substance the relationships are hidden by noise from uncont;rolled factors and variance of measurement techniques. The substances most affected by these factors are RSP, CO, and nicotine. Carbon monoxide and RSP are confounded by multiple sources, and nicotine is affected by physical instability (e.g. adsorption and re-emission from surfaces). *The markers of environmental tobacco smoke exhibit the same characteristics as markers for other substances such as C02 or TVOC. Therefore, one must conclude that the same techniques, namely ventilation and filtration, can be used for tobacco smoke. A review of the submitted papers and a critical examination of the research available to OSHA clearly demonstrates that adequate ventilation coupled with separation of smokers and nonsmokers effectively minimizes environmental tobacco smoke concentrations in large offices, small offices, and restaurants. Effective engineered solutions available to OSHA may be much less costly than the OSHA prescribed smoking rooms and would certainly be less disruptive to American workers and the American workplace. We have observed that there is no reason to single out environmental tobacco smoke from all other indoor air constituents. Scientific evidence indicates that properly ventilated spaces have very low levels of indoor air contaminants My third and final summary point in my comments today is that 3. OSHA's proposed rules for environmental tobacco smoke are costly and unnecessary Many economic, enforcement, and logical deficiencies of the proposed rule would be eliminated by treating environmental tobacco smoke as any other indoor air component. Apart from the lack of substantial scientific evidence to justify the Proposed Smoking Regulation (which is extensively detailed in other comments submitted by R.J. Reynolds and others), and apart from the fact that the Proposed Rule would unnecessarily duplicate efforts that are currently well handled by the free market, the Proposed Rule suffers from major deficiencies in three key areas; cost, enforcement, and justification: 1. Cost: OSHAA has overestimated the benefits of environmental tobacco smoke regulation while dramatically underestimating the implementation costs, both in terms of real dollars and disruptions to the workplace and the workforce. In addition, there are hidden costs that have not even been considered in the Proposed Rule. N ~ ~ 12 LO 0 ~ 0 M

OSHA has dramatically underestimated the cost of constructing smoking rooms -- apparently because the Agency misinterpreted R.J, Reynolds' published estimates of smoking lounge costs. In 1992, RJR published a brochure entitled Developing a Smoking Lounge. This pub:lication, which is apparently the source for some of OSHA's cost estimates, was intended for businesses in an office setting and envisioned a typical low rise office building, It was assumed that an office or other room would be existing and that some furnishings would be available. This would be the case in the "typical" office, where it is estimated that the cost of ventilating a smoking lounge would range from $1,500 to $4,000. It is important to note that this estimate does not include any room construction or furnishing costs and that the estimate would, in no way, apply to high-rise buildings, restaurants or other types of facilities. Based on these figures, OSI-A chose one number ($4,000) and applied it universally to determine the national cost of constructing smoking rooms. This is clearly an inaccurate approach. To provide more accurate and detailed information for estimating costs, RJRT commissioned Raytheon Engineers & Constructors to evaluate potential costs of provldiiig a 150 square foot room for smokers in a variety of workplace settings. As detailed our submitted comments, the costs range from a low of $2,481 to a high of $21,253. The costs are provided by building category, and regional adjustment factors are also provided. In order to make an accurate estimate of the total national cost of constructing smoking rooms, the Agency should calculate according to building type and geographic re gion. When such calculations are made, it is clear that OSHA dramatically underestimates the economic impact of their proposal. OSHA has overestimated the cost savings that could result from smoking bans because the Agency uses unreasonable estimates for the costs of accommodating smokers. For example, OSHA has estimated the cleaning cost savings from smoking bans to be $500 per smoker per year. Using numbers from BOMA to calculate cleaning costs, the average annual cleaning cost per person in an office building is about $250 per year (,z 286 x $0.84). How can a business save $500 per year when it is only spending $250? 2. Enforcement: The Proposed Rule presents enforcement problems that fall within two major areas: •If the Proposed Rule takes effect, it will divert and dilute the resources that OSHA and businesses now devote to enforcement of important existing regulations that J protect the health and safety of American workers. 13

•Even if additional resources were available to focus solely on environmental tobacco smoke regulations, because of the broad scope of the Proposed Rule, those resources would ultimately be ineffective because the Proposed Rule, as written, is essentially unenforceable. The OSHA smoking police would have to be in every bar, every restaurant, every mechanic's garage, inspect the American Legion hall, and follow the truck drivers to completely enforce this rule. The potential for arbitrary enforcement is enormous. 3. Justification: OSHA has not demonstrated any justification for significant provisions and premises within the Proposed Rule. For example: •the provision that no work of any kind can take place in an area where smoking occurs; If smoking is restricted under rule to enclosed exhausted rooms, and those rooms properly protect nonsmokers, why can no one work in the room and smoke at the same time? How does such a restriction improve productivity? What valid scientific reason can there possibly be for preventing work from taking place? the provision that rooms where smoking takes place must be negatively pressurized and totally exhausted; What about filtration? Why is it discounted when this technology is used for many other substances? There is no evidence cited or examined to support OSIiA's unreasonable proposal. •the underlying premise that smokers and nonsmokers alike need to be protected from environmental tobacco smoke exposure, even if they would voluntarily allow themselves to be exposed. What significant workplace risk is eliminated by preventing a waiter who is a smoker, from working in a smoking permitted section of a restaurant? Justification for this rule is lacking due simply to the fact that the Free Market system is working. As OSHA must know from examining the docket, the more recent the measurements of workplace concentrations or exposures to environmental tobacco smolce, the smaller the quantity. Is this because instrumentation is becoming less and less sensitive? Certainly not! It is because in a free society personal preference and opinion matter! If employees desire that levels be reduced, then employers respond. Businesses are establishing smoking policies in increasing numbers, and most businesses now have formal smoking policies. Through these policies, businesses determine the best solution for their particular employees, building situation, and geographic location. There is no evidence that the process of setting policies has failed in any manner, nor is there any reason to believe that setting a single standard, as in the Proposed Rule, will create any advantages not inherent in the free-market approach. If anything, setting a single standard will diminish the ability of businesses to best accommodate their employees and customers. ~ ~ 14 ~ ~ ~ Ln ~ ~ ~

In fact OSHA has ignored the workings of the free market, as well as incorrectly estimated the potentially exposed population by assuming a uniform 73.01% nonsmokers in every workplace. People employed in different occupations have different rates of smoking. Smoking policies that evolve from market forces, attempt to accommodate those differences. For example, physicians are about 94% nonsmokers (Nelson et.al. JOM, titay 1994). Their workplaces, hospitals & clinics, are virtually all nonsmoking areas. Therefore these nonsmokers have no exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. On the other hand, many construction workers are smokers. 58% of roofers, 46% of carpenters, 55% of drywall installers, 52% of masons, and 47% of painters are smokers. , "viany of these workers work outdoors. Smoking policies in the construction industry are not the same as for hospitals, nor should they be. The employee base and workplaces are different. lt makes sense for service station attendants (44% smokers) to smoke indoors away from the gas pumps to protect their own safety and the safety of others. In addition, there are differences in enclosed spaces in different geographic regions. Construction and ventilation are very different in a typical building in Minnesota compared to a typical building in Puerto Rico. A free market system can accommodate and reasonably arrive at unique solutions, taking into account, building construction, ventilation systems, geography, demographics, business types, and individual attitudes to arrive at an optimum answer. A, dictate from Washington that represents an all-or-nothing one-size-fits-all approach can n ver accommodate all of the factors that a free system can. CONCLUSION OSHA should seek out and use the best data available to determine what rules should be established regarding indoor air. Careful evaluation of data that is representative of real workplaces would lead OSHA to conclude that there is no reason to single out tobacco smoke from all other (in some cases identical) chemical compounds found in indoor workplaces. OSHA should change their proposed rule to be consistent in logical application of ventilation recommendations by treating environmental tobacco smoke like all other substances because; 1. There is no reason to single out environmental tobacco smoke from a10 other indoor air constituents. There are a wide variety of engineering controls that can effectively minimize environmental tobacco smoke concentrations to which nonsmokers are exposed. These 15

are the same techniques prescribed by OSHA for controlling identical chemicals emitted from other sources into the indoor air. These techniques work. 2. Properly ventilated spaces have very low levels of indoor air contaminants American businesses should have the option of employing any effective controls in lieu of the restrictive environmental tobacco suioke provisions contained in the Proposed Rule. Because of cost considerations, the proposed rules would effectively prohibit smoking in most workplaces; a prohibition that cannot be justified when judgment is made on a scientific basis. 3. OSHA's proposed rules for environmental tobacco smoke are costly and unnecessary, because, properly ventilated spaces have very low levels of indoor air contaminants. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company agrees that indoor air quality is an important * issue and that additional safeguards are necessary. We also believe that the ventilation based approach that the Proposed Rule takes concerning indoor air contaminants in general, represents a sound and rational basis for improving indoor air quality. Buildings should be ventilated to the rates established by ANSI/ASHRAE 62-1989. For those buildings unable to comply during all weather conditions, they should be operated to the design capacity for their original code, provided that the use has not changed. The best way to assure that buildings are properly operated, is to assure that operators are qualified. Qualified operators will recognize the vital role that maintenance plays in assuring good indoor air quality. Properly ventilated spaces have very low levels of indoor air contaminants. For the overwhelming majority of employers in the United States, there is little doubt that the proposed rule would result in total smoking bans, The costs associated with the proposed smoking restrictions -- including the costs of lost productivity -- would be too great for most employers to bear. Employers are already free to institute smoking policies if there are legitimate business reasons for doing so. Federal regulation provides no clear benefit that is not already being realized through current market efforts, and in fact, would unnecessarily burden American business with overly restrictive and inappropriate regulations. ~ ~ ~ 16 U: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~