Tobacco Documents Online

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: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~