Tobacco Documents Online

A Case History: ~ The Impact of EPA's Flawed Study on the Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Issue Based on a"politically correct" decision to eliminate environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) produced a scientifically-flawed report, which has lead to a piecemeal approach to the problem of indoor air quality. Once again, this is an example of how EPA's political agenda has negatively impacted our health and well-being. • o The EPA has not conducted a comprehensive, peer-reviewed study on the entire range of indoor air pollutants -- chemicals, fibers, smoke and dust, to name but a few. o The Total Indoor Environmental Quality Coalition (TIEQ) found only a few cases in which scientific evidence was even capable of isolating a single causal agent for health problems resulting from indoor air pollution. o The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) examined 203 air quality investigations of schools, health facilities and government and business offices, and found that the largest source of complaints about the quality of indoor air was poor ventilation. o NIOSH also reported that, in buildings where adverse health effects were reported, tobacco smoke was a factor in only two percent of the complaints, calling into question the EPA's apparent belief that smoking bans will significantly reduce indoor air pollution. o The NIOSH study found that in most of the buildings inadequate ventilation, unsanitary heating and air conditioning systems, and fumes from other sources were the real problem. o A Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) survey found that nearly 85 percent of employers have already implemented a workplace smoking policy. The fact that an independent solution to the problem exists calls into question the EPA's motivation for concentrating on ETS in the first place. o Smoke-free buildings are not necessarily healthy buildings, a fact proven by the EPA's own Washington headquarters. In spite of the smoking ban imposed inside the building, EPA employees have complained of illnesses, and the building is considered "sick" due to a lack of adequate ventilation or filtration to deal with such common air pollutants as chemicals, fibers and gases. o The EPA's perceived conclusion that eliminating ETS leaves a building healthy opens the door to exorbitant worker's compensation claims for employers n~ _ whose employees contract illnesses despite the ban. v i o Only a comprehensive approach will solve the problem of IAQ. A i ~ V

2074144198

0 Draft-Opinion Editorial INDOOR AIR QUALITY . i Taking showers and baths every day is a good way to keep your entire body clean and healthy. But what if someone told you that on Sundays you could only wash your face, and on Mondays your arms, and on Tuesdays your back, and on Wednesdays your legs, and on Thursdays your chest, and on Fridays your stomach and on Saturdays your hair. This is not a very efficient way of keeping clean and healthy. Yet such a piecemeal approach is exactly how the EPA is choosing to address the disturbing problem of cleaning up indoor air and protecting our health. Many of us work -- or knows someone who works -- in a "sick building," a building where the combination of poor air circulation, germs and chemicals cause illness. Many of us are all too familiar with the litany of symptoms -- eye, nose and throat irritation; headaches; lethargy; occasional dizziness; fatigue; nausea; and the inability to concentrate. And we have speculated, with curiosity and at least a tinge of panic, about whether an acute or chronic illness -- our own or that of a co-worker -- might be due to a sick building. Sick buildings pose a real and growing health problem. And curing them effectively requires a comprehensive solution. Unfortunately, the EPA continues to approach the problem of sick buildings on a piecemeal basis, concentrating on particular pollutants rather than the overall problem. It is surprising that the EPA adopted this strategy since groups such as the Total Indoor Environmental Quality Coalition (TIEQ) have discovered that in only a few cases has scientific evidence identified a single causal agent linking adverse health effects to poor indoor air quality. Now the California legislature is following the misguided lead of EPA in its consideration of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Other state legislatures could follow. Currently, the EPA is focusing on the issue of the day, environmental tobacco smoke. While politically appealing as a target, the focus on environmental tobacco smoke diverts attention from solving the more significant and potentially dangerous problems of indoor air quality. A review of 203 air quality investigations of schools, health care facilities, and government and business offices conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), revealed that inadequate ventilation was the major source of complaints about air quality. This was confirmed by an October 1991 General Account Office (GAO) report that stated, "Correcting ventilation problems ... can reduce indoor air problems more quickly and extensively than trying to identify and control individual indoor pollutants."

. -2- Let's not let policy makers use a piecemeal approach and the public's general distaste for tobacco smoke as a justification for backing away from their original commitment to examine the problem of indoor air quality in its entirety. How can we develop a comprehensive solution to the problem of indoor air quality, and what should the solution be? 1) Undertake more studies to determine the effect of the full range of indoor pollutants on our health. Current information is limited and research is made difficult by the number of factors -- the pollutants themselves, the ventilation of buildings, and each individual's different reaction to indoor environmental conditions that must be studied. Without more intense scientific research, any solution that limits or bans a certain pollutant is of questionable effectiveness and may cost companies millions of dollars of unnecessary expense. • 2) Encourage business and industry to be concerned with their sick buildings' ventilation systems and the impact on their workers' health. New buildings and their heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems can be constructed that take environmental and indoor air quality into account with the assistance of new proven, low cost technologies. 3) Insist that government hold off costly regulations until a total approach can be developed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to set standards for total indoor air quality. Once these standards are set, individual businesses should be allowed to meet them in ways that best suit their particular situations. Studies show that allowing flexibility to improve general air quality in a variety of ways is far less costly than having remote authorities impose uniform responses to particular pollutants. At this time when we are all focusing on improving our outdoor environment, let's remember that most people spend 90 percent of their time indoors. Let's make sure that public policy for improving our indoor environment is as efficient as possible. ~ O • V ~ ~ A T1 N O O

. Draft-Opinion Editorial WHEN ONE + ONE DOES NOT EQUAL TWO • If not for the serious economic and health impacts its actions will have on workers and businesses across the country, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recent attempt to solve indoor air pollution could be lightly dismissed as another example of the cliche: 'Tm from the government, and I'm here to help. " The more sobering view of EPA's proposed actions will lead this country in a direction that is both expensive and dangerous to all Americans' health. The EPA began its program to solve indoor air pollution -- and the numerous illnesses thought to be related to it -- by issuing an unsubstantiated report that claimed second-hand tobacco smoke causes cancer. While the report was totally without scientific foundation -- credible scientists have publicly debunked it -- EPA's initiative was "politically correct" and found widespread acceptance in the media and among the agency's adoring or beholden constituency. With its false report in hand, EPA then set out to convince the public and other governmental agencies that by removing environmental tobacco smoke, we could eliminate the health effects of indoor air pollution. Case closed, problem solved. If only it were that simple. The EPA has made a major scientific blunder by failing to conduct a serious, peer-reviewed study of indoor air pollution. By relying on its own flawed report, it is giving millions of Americans the false conviction that there is a simple solution to improving indoor air quality. What EPA hasn't addressed is what happens when businesses ban smoking and workers still get sick. As a matter of fact, in a review of 203 air quality investigations at schools, health facilities, and government and business offices, the National Institute of Safety and Health concluded that tobacco smoke had a contributing role in only two percent of the complaints. One place where the EPA's thesis falls apart is in its own Washington headquarters. The Agency's building is considered "sick" because it lacks adequate ventilation or filtration to deal with such common air pollutants as chemicals, fibers and gases. EPA employees have contracted serious illnesses despite a smoking ban in virtually the entire complex. N O ~ . ~ ~ A N O i

. 0 -2- Instead of using its own experiences with indoor air quality to initiate a comprehensive scientific study of the problem, the agency seems intent on bowing to political pressure to seek a quick fix. On the surface it might appear that the only losers are smokers and tobacco companies. In fact, the greatest threat is to the health and safety of g„il workers. Unless the EPA engages in a thorough study of indoor air pollution, we will never be able to improve job conditions for American workers. By taking the easy way out, the Agency is creating the false sense of security that smoke-free buildings are healthy buildings. That logic did not hold up for the two workers at the Social Security Administration office in Richmond, California, who died after they were exposed to deadly micro-organisms which cause Legionnaire's Disease. The outbreak left 13 others infected and forced the government to close the building for three months. Already in this country Americans spend $115 billion annually complying with pollution control regulations. And, it is estimated that overall each American pays some $450 more in higher taxes and prices because of EPA regulations. That is $1,800 a year more for a family of four. work. We don't need more regulations. What we need are regulations that In order to improve this country's indoor air quality, the EPA needs to conduct thorough and impartial scientific studies that examine the various forms of pollution -- chemical, fiber, smoke, dust, etc. -- and to consider how best to reduce the pollutants. Once such a study is completed, standards can be set for total indoor air quality. Then, individual businesses should be allowed to meet them in ways that best suit their particular situations. Studies show that allowing flexibility to improve general air quality in a variety of ways is far less costly than having remote authorities impose uniform responses to particular pollutants. Without a comprehensive approach to total indoor air quality, the EPA is not in a position to do more than blow smoke at the American people. N O ~ a • y ~ P N O N

! Draft-Opinion Editorial WORKER'S COMPENSATION i Sach year, businesses of all sizes contribute millions of dollars to state worker compensation funds in order to provide a financial safety net for employees unable to work due to job-related accidents or ailments. The compensation programs, while sometimes controversial, have effectively served to protect businesses from numerous lengthy and expensive lawsuits while providing injured employees with immediate financial support. In recent years, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and its state counterparts have established rules and acceptable work-place practices that are intended to protect workers. If well- conceived and effectively implemented, these new regulations also aid companies by increasing worker productivity and reducing job site injuries. Among federal agencies, OSHA has won respect from the business community by using sound, peer-reviewed science as the foundation for regulations affecting conditions in the workplace. Moreover, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), our repository of scientific data and epidemiology on workplace issues, has made great strides over the past decade in developing credible information to guide government and business. Which makes all the more surprising -- and dismaying -- the latest twist in the politics of regulatory agency science. In this case, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is trying to create an end run on OSHA, and those who are likely to suffer the effects of this power play will be American workers. There's always the danger to a good program when somebody in the government tries to impose regulations that not only don't improve working conditions, but actually encourage the continuation of practices that jeopardize employee health and increase compensation claims. Such is the case with a new initiative from the EPA to "cure" the effects of indoor-air pollution. EPA has issued a report which concludes that people can get sick, even contract cancer, from other people's cigarette smoke. The implication of EPA's report is that tobacco smoke in the work-place be banned, thereby dramatically improving the air employees breathe. N O A ~ ~ J ? P N O W

I -2- f To start with, EPA carried out its study without seeking the cooperation and sound scientific credentials of OSHA, where the jurisdiction for this issue rightly exists. More important, however, EPA's approach is based on a shoddy document that ignored the results of two dozen scientific studies and failed to take a comprehensive view of the issue. The agency -- clearly bowing to political pressures -- ignored NIOSH's study of 203 air quality reports from research at schools, health facilities and offices. NIOSH found that only in two percent of the buildings where health complaints were registered did tobacco smoke play a contributing role. Unfortunately, EPA seems intent upon working from a mind-set that if tobacco smoke is eliminated from buildings and the workplace the indoor-air pollution problem is solved. Because the agency failed to work with OSHA to conduct a comprehensive scientific study of g_ll the factors contributing to indoor-air pollution, its recent report ignores the multitude of airborne factors which are likely to have harmful health effects, including chemicals, fibers and gases and trace elements commonly found in the air of office buildings and manufacturing facilities. Clearly, the ability of the government to regulate is not at issue; this country spends $115 billion annually on pollution control regulations. The question is whether these regulations are properly coordinated among responsible agencies and lead to a desired result. In the case of indoor-air pollution, the answer is a resounding NO. EPA needs to back off and let OSHA and NIOSH take the lead, since it is their responsibility and jurisdiction. What we need is a thorough study of the issue. Without it, politics and "politically correct" responses will effectively condemn American workers to prolonged exposure to dangerous pollutants. It could be a real tragedy if workers and businesses conclude that by banning tobacco smoke, they are significantly lessening the probability of work-place illness. Instead of continuing to court disaster, our responsible federal and state agencies should be working together with business and labor to launch a comprehensive scientific study of indoor pollutants. Let's get the facts on the table first, then decide how to take steps that will result in honest improvements in the American work-place. N O V ,A A . ~ N O A

i Draft-Opinion Editorial A NEED FOR MORE SOLUTIONS, NOT MORE PROBLEMS i President Clinton's new Administration is sending critically mixed signals to Americans at a time when most people are encouraging him to bring about much-needed change. While on one hand, we hear that the federal government is trying to reshape itself to improve the economic future of the country, we also learn that powerful forces are pushing for new regulations that could severely undercut the fmancial stability of business and jeopardize the health of American workers. We see this policy contradiction starkly represented by actions of the Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency. When faced by the urgent need to down-size the military and close U.S. bases around the world, our government created a non-partisan commission called the Defense Base Closure and Re-alignment Commission, which spent several years making a comprehensive evaluation of the military's future needs and preparing its recommendations. These recommendations, while controversial, were based upon a thorough and detailed non-political study of each military facility and its prospective role in meeting our nation's defense needs. In short, while those affected may be grumbling, the country as a whole can have confidence that the commission based its findings on real facts and hard data -- and that no recommendation had a specific "politically correct" motive. And the use of comprehensive assessment in the political process can also be seen elsewhere. Congress and the President are examining the details much more closely as they evaluate issues such as healthcare reform and modifying the space program -- issues which are of great concern and have a vast economic impact upon our lives. Contrast this performance with the EPA in its role on the potential health threats posed by a relatively new environmental issue which has come to be known as indoor air pollution. Ever-zealous to find new problems to solve, even while old and acknowledged conditions remain unresolved, EPA launched an internal study to seek data which would justify the agency's determination to further regulate the conditions in which we live. Unfortunately for us all, the EPA report was inconclusive. EPA scientists, using a scientifically acceptable methodology, could not provide clear evidence (statistical or otherwise) to prove the agency's primary regulatory objective -- the banning of indoor tobacco smoke.

t 0 0 0 -2- So in a stroke of "scientific" editing, the EPA simply revised its own standards and flatly distorted the available data in producing its now famous report, "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders," which claimed that "secondary smoke" is responsible for as many as 3,000 lung cancer deaths in the United States each year. Rather than seek more comprehensive research, EPA then bowed to the politics of the issue and announced that it would establish regulations on environmental tobacco smoke. By taking such action, said EPA officials, the "danger" of the health risks associated with indoor air pollution would henceforth be eliminated. But what really happened here? Did the EPA, without conducting a single scientifically and peer-reviewed acceptable study, simply determine that someone else's tobacco smoke is the major cause of indoor air pollution? How could they do that? And what kinds of other questions does this raise about the Agency's real commitment to protecting the health of America's workers? My interpretation is that the agency has, in essence, told business that if it bans tobacco smoke from the workplace, the health effects of indoor air pollution will hugely disappear. There is an irrefutable problem associated with this simplistic action: it is not based on science and it does not lessen the real health risks to workers. As a matter of fact, in a review of 203 air quality investigations of schools, health facilities and government and business offices, another federal agency, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), officially concluded that tobacco smoke played a contributing role in only two percent of the building complaints investigated. (NIOSH has principal federal responsibility for assuring worker health and has a highly qualified staff of scientific experts.) This situation raises an important question of employer liability. What if smoking is eliminated from the workplace and employees still experience illnesses associated with indoor air pollution? Who gets blamed then? The employer, that's who. While the EPA may issue regulations based purely on pseudo-science and the current direction of political winds, the liability for worker illnesses can fall squarely on the shoulders of business. So despite all the EPA hoopla about a progressive government action, imposed without benefit of scientific evidence, the initiative fails because its premise was grounded in quicksand, while business is left holding the bag.