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.

t • • -3- U.S. businesses are having enough trouble trying to compete in the global marketplace and do not need this type of counterproductive regulatory zeal. Business wants good, sound and comprehensive thinking from the government. Imagine the justifiable public outcry if the base-closing commission made its recent recommendations without conducting a comprehensive study of the broad social and economic implications of its action. While painful to many communities and to the businesses which served these facilities, Americans have reacted with general respect for the fair and even-handed approach taken by the Commission. We should demand no less from the EPA. If there is evidence of significant risk associated with indoor air pollution, then it should be studied rigorously -- but honestly. Based on sound scientific data, a total approach can be developed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 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. Research on compliance with air and water pollution regulations clearly show that allowing flexibility is far less costly and more effective than having remote authorities impose cookie-cutter responses to each particular pollutant. More than ever, Americans want to have confidence in their institutions of government. President Clinton made this a cornerstone of his campaign. Environmental policy is a good place to start. no d V ~ ~ t+7 O 4

SOZbti6bLOZ

Thnndry, FeairBy 27, T9fi 10-CLASSIFIED 40 TYl~eu-rOY Poll links indoor air to office workers' ills Hy Paut Schnitt ie. 5uff w'rher Two a.t of frve downtown Sacra- nrenro office wvricers queanoned in an informal poll say their work would improve if the air they breathed on the ph was ckanr and fresher According to the survey, rdeased Wednesday, many conpWned of symptoms such as drednass (30 paromr ot tho.e poYadt, he.d.cM RS percent), wnary or Ydry.ya R I petarq and ffwhk. diacosfart al p«nenn. Nan t6.n haft d tlw apperaF. snatdy 200 oMc. +rort.n pollb ridtlh.ymokaf M.wasrdqoQg y..r dttp b tlma o00.fallad .L OWA>• Aairw--~~--. !I[tlrddhYke Of tlM a9iYN'dfJt 11ddw4 W* dror; wlkA syalMfan at8e.Will" Typicalty. the symptoms go away after workers lave the butldoK The Sacramento survey was done Wr fa0 for Heahhy Buildinp Inrernaoorul, the cwntry's lartest udoor .ir quaiity cnrruhinj firm. which conducted similar polls in Los Angeles. San Franctsco Md three otlter West Cosst aues. The offia workern were qua- tiomd raMomly on the stroes As a toBow-up, oampany o![Sdalf held a free half•day senisto WatYraBay in Sacranento on irr door bsaYh problems for pnqarty eanaprs, bnldtnt d~4saaa. on afwaa a,d Iu,e ernpioyaea 'Wt make no 6ow Noat 4, nw'n a pmAt-motlvawN aa.y.rty and we're doisg 1t to h. tnaw our husi iisow Nid qmy AoAafboa. presid„t of Nyrlq . *Ad.ih a V'uptr.mwasxq. 9t wt dun ohNay 61111111111 .he afb.dad the a.aiy-IM& ~WE

: s I ' When Your Offk Feeling woozy and'don't know why? It may be tht RYKAiHERINEGRIFFIN "tight" building, where occupants are completely dependent on a central vem t looked to be a good year far tilatiou system for the air they breathe James Miles. The software - and whatever gets into the ventilating company he'd started five system gets into the workers' lungs as years earlier. Phoenix Cnm- well. puters, had just moved into TheEnvironmentalProtectionAgen- fancy quarters on the 12th cy ranks indoor alr pollution - in both floor of a new highrise in El Se. homes and offices - as one of the five gundo. Callfornia most urgent environmental Issues fn the C ) It was an absolutely gor- I.nstedStates.Theagencyestmtatesthat ~geous building," Miles recalls. 30 to 75 million workers are at risk of get- "tt had all the amenities." Elegant mar ting sick because of the buildings they blelobby,plushcarpeting•LuxuriantpoP w'orkink ted plants. windows that sealed out not.se ome builtltngborne ailments can but let in plenty of natural Gght - evSeven be fatal.ln 1991, at lheSoctet enahtng that an entrepreneur on the Security Administration building way up could want Miles and his em~ in Richmond, an outbreak of Legiom p(oyees. the building's first tenanrs, seD naires' disease thought to be caused by a tled right in. buildup of bacteria ln the ventilanun But one Friday morning a few weeks s_vstem killed two worketss after the move. accountants Louise Other forms of indoor air pollution Aldrich and Pam Connollp were workcan cause asthma and a severe lung ming m,17drlch's office when suddenly flamma[ion called hypersensitivity they began gasping for breztn. They fled the raom. coughing and ehoking, eyes pneutnonitts. A small percentage of peo- burningandtearsstreamingdowntheir Ple exposed to contsminants in office cheeks. buildings develop multiple chemical sen. Over a three-day w'eekend. the two sitivity. a heightened vulnerability W aB kinds of chemical substances. a~omen recovered enough to return to Far more often. though, workers in work on Tuesday. But withm the next tw'oweeks•almos[everyoneintheoffice sealed structures suffer from the hard. began to feel sick. -People were getting topindown but debilitating symptams headaches," Miles recalls. "They were knownassickbuildingsyndrome.[none nauseated, losing coordination. The office, workers may experience dizzi- longer you stayed in the building, the ness. headaches, nausea, burning eyes worse y'ou d feel." and nosebteeds In another. people may Miles complained to the buildin s find themselves unusually tired. coughmarmgement. `dt first the5 thought we 1Dg and sneezing, with itchy skin and thraats. Contact lens w'earers may suffer were crazy;' he says. "To prove there severe eye iMtation. w'as nothing wrong one of the managers set up shop in our offices. You know how But here's the ruh: People every- long he tasted? One day." where occasionaily come down with The problem, Miles soon learned, was these ailments and eomplaincs. So when that construction crews working in an do you blame the building, instead of unoccupied area of the same ftour were hay fever, a cold or too many nights an using strong, solventbased adhesives to the town? One tipoft tt symptoms get seal holes in the ah' ducts. And. because worse as the workday wears on and then ofadefect,thebuilding'sventilattonsys~ Impraveatnightandonw'eekendswhen tem was pumping the toxic vapors into People are home, take a closer took at Phoenix's office suite, the building. Milesconvmcedthebuilding'sowner Since the late 1979s. indoorair spe- to cut holes in the glass of some of the clahsts from the National Institute for windows in Phoenix's offlces and install Occupational Safety and Health ~NIOSHI fans to pull in more fresh air. "But even have been called in to investigate more with that." he says, "there were dead than 1,000 instances of buildingrelated zunes where no matter what you did, tllness. [n more than 50 percent of the you couldn't stay there." Several em. cases, the institute has fingered mado- ployces quit rather than work in the 4uate ventllation, followed by chemical building, and after 18 months, Miles contamination and problenus traced to gave up and moved the company out. microbiological agents such as mold; The year was 1985, and in bacteria and fungi. door air pol. lutionwasn'tsomethingJtites-ormos[ 'EVerything contrihutes" says other employers or employees - had Richard Shaughnessy, a chemical engi- thought much about. But in moving to neerwhudirectstheindoonairresearch that brandnew 24stnry highrise, program at the University of Tulsa in PhoenixComputershadsetupshapina Oklahoma. `Copiers, ventilation sys. tems, the air brought in /rom outdoors, the number of people in a work space." e 199JHeolfhMogazfne Whenworkersaresneezing,poppmg aspirin, or walking around In a daae. it's then delivers it to the occupants Adm~ time for the builtlin doctors to examine throu h a ri f d t O g g se es o uc s nce . the causes. the air has evculated, return That's ducts channel some of it out- he Bu din s Lun T g g one way to think of the ventilation system, says James Cone, an occupational health physician at the University of Catifornu at San Francisco. The unit sucks in air from outside, runs it through a bank of fil. / ' t ters, warms it or cools it. and

, e Utt.LLS IIIj:~ the building you work in needs the checkup. '°' .°' side, In most buildings, the rest of the used air is mixed with fresh alr and recirculated. Whhm this labyrinth lurk ample opportumties for trouble. ^If vou go into the dark recesses of a ventila. tion system. you'd be shocked at w'hat you'd find," Shaughnessy says, Beyond the expected dirt and dust, typical detrttus in- cludes dead mice, Insects, particles of bmlding mate rials, mold, mildew and pesticides left by care~ less exterminators Io one 14assa. chusetts building, employ'ees were plagued by itchy red bumps they thought were inseet bites. Instead, consultant David Bearg found Ioase bits of fiberglass in. sulation blowing through the ducts. New filters ended the outbreak. Not all the trouble comes from the newer, tight buildings, by the way: Some older, unsealed buildings with dfrt clogged ventilation systems are among the worst offenders.In ehhercase. when the system works well and ts kept clean, workers breathe easy. Deadly dull work and ponderous lunches aren't the only reasons office workers nod off in the afternoon. Too lib tle air might be the problem. The Amer, ican Society of Heating, Hefrigeration. and Alr Conditioning Engineers, which establishes the ventilatton standards that influence local building codes, orig- inally set a figure of 15 cubic feet of fresh outdoor air per person per minute back in the 1930s , Then, in I975, prompted by the ener- gy crisis, the group decided that office workers could make do witk five - about what the average airplane passeo- ger gets. Though the recommenduion has since been boosted back up to 20, many buildings still don't circulate enough fresh atr. This means colds and other viruses spread more easily. When U S. Army re searchers compared ailments among two groups of 400,000 recruits, some of whom were housed in older, naturally ventilated qnarters and some of whom lived in newer, tightly sealed barracks, they found that the soldiers in the closed buildings got 50 percent more colds than those who lived in quarters where they could throw open a window. When a sealed office is crammed with more people than it was designed to hold, workers get less fresh alr thaa they shoWd. The standard of 20 cubic feet assumes that no more than seven people will occupy a t,00Psquarefoot area Stuff In more workers, and more air ie needed. Then there's plain bad destgn Some times a system sucks in and spews out air that's unfit for anyone to breathe. In buildings where workers have camplatned of headaches,fatigue,and nau- sea, investigators have traced the symp. toms to carbon monoxide potsoning. How might this happen to someone shaffling papers an Ihe 18th Ooar? Eass ly,1f the building's fresh air intakes open near a parking garage or a loading dock frequented by idling trucks, One sala tion is [o put up a sign by the loading dock, telling truckers to shut their em gines off immediately. Or, if the system See Page 10 Nursing a Building Back ta HeaZth Y W walkfntayourOfflceatst immedlatetystartmsaeeae The guy in the nertcubtcle cau'twearhiscontactlensea anymore. f ate in the afternoon the afk feela so stegnaK youcan barely keep your eyes open. EverybadY passesaround colds like potato ehfp at a pienfr.. You suspect you're working m a siek btdlding, but what ea.n you do ab.utIt! baawaa T..r TTwp.s Keep a log of yom' own and yourrn warkers' complaints-who gers what symptoma when atd w here. If worket sx take their matadtes to the doctor, keep records of thase visits, too. The American College of Occupational and Envlron- mental Medicine will provide names of physicians in your areawhospecialim in occupational healm. Call me conege'sed- ucationaldepartmentatYfOg1228dg50or the Association of Occupational and Envi- ronmental Cltnicsatl202134't497ga taaY 6ord fhe gdtdiq "Workersshoutd take responsibility for checking out their ownventilation systems,"says occupational health physi- clan ]ames Cane of San Francfsco. "You can learna IoL"BYrst, ebeckthe ceiling, walls and f loor to see whether each room has a soutceof air. Take a look at the air vents.Holdapieceoftissuepaperupm ~ each one to see whether atr u actually movingin or oul Grimy vents are a sfgn of inefficientor old fitters. Furniture or partitions placed over or in front of vents may be blocking the air flow. Check around copy, printing and shreddfngnLchtnestomakesnre they are neu a functloning exbawt vent H workers have to spend fong periods of time standing over such equipment,the machlnesshouidbefocatedfooncon- tinedspaces. Askthebuildingrnmnagerbowmany cublc feet per minute of fresh outdoorair Is circulating per person. If Is'a rder 211, lt's nat enough. Note when the ventila- ltOn system Is turned oif (ymt'li knaw when the white noise from the fans smps). If it cycles off for long periods dur. Ing the day, or goes off campleteiy while many people arestig warktngln the buiWing, contammanta may he building upintheair. Ask the buf ]ding maf n tena nce super- visor when the drain pans were Iast cle,aned, fs there aregufar mamtenance schedule? Are pesticides usednear the ventilstionsystem! ¢so, what precau- tians are being taken to keep these suh• stances out of the circulating airsupplyT Find out if any construction m reno- vatian projects are under way; if so. ask what's being done to flush harmfm va. pors from the butlding. gstg.st MHa. Once you've targetedaoy hazards, you'll have to convincesomeooe to do something, starting with your etbployer. If yaur efforts meet with resistance, you might get hold of the Environmental Pro, tectian Agency's detailed guide,'Build- ing Air Quality: A Guide for Building Owners and Facility Managera"It's avail, able for $24 by writing to New Orden, Su- perlntendent of Documeots, P,O. Box 371gtiS,Pfttsburgh,PAt575i17g6/.Qtefer marderproceaqngcode et03.1 You can al- so orderby tax:1202/5122258. The pubti. catianezplainshow a building manager can clean up and prevent indoorair pu4 lutlon and when expert help might be needed. It also reminds managers that their Indifference can result in disgrun tied workers, lowered producnvity, baa publicity and hefty lawsuits. Cdl l. NM gxprfs TheNatieoal Institute for Occupation- al Safety and Health's Hazard Evaluanon andTechnical Assistance Branch imesti- gatessick building outbreaks but has the tlmeand staff for only the most serious ca.xs. Hawever, a telephone hot line- ag 1800/35NIOSH-provides basic in ftrntationand referrals tostate and local healthdepartments. As sick building problems become more visible, private consultants are sprlagingup like algae m a dram pan. The EPA wlll publish a It.stof such firms within a few months. Check wtth the Pub- lic Information Center, Environmental ProtectionAgency, Washington. D.C.. 2A4G0,1282)EB0.2118n,orcallthe.firQualityOfficeatiD72i2A39030.ASitfortheSur vey of Indoor Air Quality Diagnostic and MitlgatlonFirms. Also check the local yellow pages un der Indaor AirorIndustrial HygieneCon sultants.Whoevercontractsforthescseo vittsshould ask ahout cases the company has handled before.If possible check referenees;suchfhxnsaren'tregulated.and some have little experience. -K.G.

CONTENTS ! • Occupational Hazards The Magaine of 5afety, Health and Envimnmental Managemenl j FEATURES 23 THE LEGACY OF LITTLE BOY The bomb dropped on Hiroshima helped build Oak Ridge, Tenn. In the first of our two-part series, we examine whether the environmental fallout from Little Boy could also destroy it. 28 REINVENTING INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE At an Occupational Hazards/American Industrial Hygiene Association roundtable, leading industrial hygiene managers examined the issues facing a profession immersed in change. 32 WHY EMPLOYEES ARE SICK OF INDOOR AIR Contaminants in building air can harm your workers' health, productivity, and morale. Our experts outline strategies for clearing the air of this $60 billion health problem. 37 BLOWING IN THE WIND? Protecting employees who complain about dangerous working conditions moves center stage in the OSHA reform debate. 41 TIPS FOR TERMINAL VISION Optometrist Edward Godnig explains how to avoid visual stress at computer VDTs. DEPARTMENTS 6 EDITORIAL Why the OSH Act - and OSHA - need revision. 8 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR A second opinion on workers' comp. 11 OSHA PEL rule struck down...N.C. reprieve. 17 EPA Air permit rule issued...Contracts overhaul promised. MARKETPLACE 21 SAFETY & HEALTH ACGIH adopts new cancer ratings. 44 CONTESTED CASES General duty and contractors' obligations. 47 WORKERS' COMP UPDATE Texas implements Extra Hazardous Employer Program. 50 PEOPtiE & PLACES Swanson named OSHA deputy assistant secretary. 58 ADVERTISERS' INDEX 53 PRODUCT SHOWCASE Safety signs and labels mustprovide information to a diverse workforce. 54 FREE LITERATURE COVER: Photograph by S.L. Smtlh. A LIG UST 1992 page 28 11 k, August 1992/Occupational Hazards 5 2074144212

0 0 WHY EMPL4YEES ARE OF INDOOR AIR Contaminants in building air can harm your worken' health, productivity, and morale. Our experts outline strategies for clearing the air of this $60 billion health problem. By Gregg LaBar I n indoor air qual- ity lingo, a major national commu- nications company had a "crisis building" on its hands, according to researcher Stephen J. Reynolds. Employees were complaining about the air quality and nearly all of them were exhibit- ing at least one adverse health effect, including coughing, throat irrita- tion, and disorientation, explained Reynolds, as- sistant professor in the Dept. of Preventive Medicine and Environ- mental Health at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. In the course of events, the company did not docu- ment or investigate the problems. But when 31 employees sought emergency medical care, the company de- cided to evacuate the building and have tion than a dramatic example of what is a team of experts investigate. occurring in varying degrees through- The team uncovered problems with out the country. "Nearly all employers the heating, ventilation, and air condi- will end up with questions about indoor tioning (HVAC) system; improper air eventually," warns Henry B. Lick, chemical use throughout the facility;' -manager of industrial hygiene for Ford and microbial contamination. They also Motor Co., Dearborn, Mich., which op- concluded that had the company ad- erates some 2,000 facilities nationwide. dressed employee concerns sooner, American adults spend about 90 per- many of the problems could have been cent of their time indoors, where con- avoided. According to Reynolds, the centrations of some contaminants have episodecostthecompanyasmuchas$1 been found to be two to five times million to shut down operations, hire higher than outdoors. Experts estimate the necessary consultants, and renovate that between 800,000 and 1.2 million the HVAC system. commercial buildings have deficiencies Reynolds'case study is less an aberra- in indoor air quality. The Em ironmen- 32 Occupational Hazards/August 1992 tat Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that IAQ problems cost American business some $60 billion annu- ally, most of it the result of lost productivity. Workers' compensation and health care costs ac- count for several billion dollars of the total, ex- perts said. Healthy Buildings In- ternational Inc. (HBI), a Fairfax, Va., IAQ con- sulting firm, estimates that an employer with 667 employees in a "sick" office building can expect to suffer pro- ductivity losses of about $200,000 annually ($300 per employee) due to employee absenteeism, assuming an IAQ-re- lated absenteeism rate ~ of 1 percent. ~ "The majority of the f costs are hard to see be- cause they're related to absenteeism, morale, and quality of work," Iowa's Reynolds said. "Medical costs are probably less than 10 percent of the total loss. There just aren't a lot of cases where there is a physician-diag- nosable illness." Sheldon H. Rabinovitz, director of industrial hygiene and toxicology for Sandler Occupational Medicine Asso- ciates, a Melville, N.Y., consulting firm, notes that while few indoor air situations are life-threatening, em- ployers still need to address IAQ con- cerns for health and economic rea- sons. "If there are complaints, the employer must do what he can to 2074144213

eliminate the problem. He cannot live with the problem," Rabinovitz said. Wide Range of Effects The variety of maladies associated with poor indoor air ranges from an- noyances and comfort concerns to seri- ous infections and even death. The more serious problems have sparked interest in indoor air quality, but the less severe problems are far more common. The case that probably did more than any other to alert Americans to "build- ing-related illness" occurred in Philadel- phia in 1976, with the outbreak of Le- gionnaires' disease (an example of microbial contamination) among guests at the Bellevue-Stratford Hotel. Twenty- nine people ultimately died after breath- ing bacteria-contaminated air that was disseminated through the hotel's duct- work systems. Since then, several other outbreaks of Legionnaires' disease have been reported, as well as deaths result- ing from inhalation of fungi. In addition to the severe acute effects, a number of chronic effects can also have fatal consequences. For example, according to EPA, chronic exposure to asbestos and radon in the indoor envi- ronment is responsible for thousands of cancer deaths a year. Regular exposure to environmental tobacco smoke has been linked to thousands of excess can- cer and heart disease cases annually. At the less severe end of the spec- trum, the most common complaints in- clude eye irritation, dry throat, runny nose, headache, fatigue, skin irritation, shortness of breath, cough, dizziness, and nausea. There is no one-to-one cor- respondence between cause and effect, and in manycases, it is difficult to iso- late a specific cause or causes. According to Healthy Buildings tech- nician Michael A. Price, allergenic fungi, dusts, low relative humidity, bacteria, and chemical off-gassing from carpeting and furniture are the most common causes of IAQ problems. The pollutants remain in the air, Price said, due to poor maintenance, inefficient air filtration, poor ventilation in tltiF inter- est of conserving energy, or changes in the design and use of a building. What makes indoor air quality issues especially difficult to manage is that ef- fects can vary widely among people. For example, workers with allergies or weakened immune systems may be more susceptible to indoor air maladies than other employees. In addition, many experts believe that ergonomics and work area lighting can affect worker perceptions of the quality of the breathing air and worker comfort. Therefore, they recommend consider- ing those issues along with indoor air - a strategy of addressing the more inclu- sive concept of "indoor environmental quality" (see sidebar on these pages). There are also theories that psychqso- cial factors - stress, job satisfaction, and labor-management relations - may impact who will complain about problems they associate with poor in- door air quality. Some experts believe that generally unhappy and/or lower- paid workers are more likely to com- plain of IAQ-associated health effects. Ford's Lick estimated that psychoso- cial factors are present in about 60 per- cent of the indoor air complaints Ford receives. However, he noted that work- ers at all different levels - general man- agers to entry-level clerks - have been known to voice their concerns. He said, "In some instances, we've had every- body asking us to please do something. We knew we had a problem then." Preventing Problems Ideally, experts said, employers should be thinking about indoor air quality before their employees do. This would include, they said, making good indoor air a contractually binding re- quirement in the lease signed with the building manager. The incentive is there for both em- ployers and building managers. There have been several cases, for example, INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Just when employers, employees, and govern- ment officials were be- coming comfortable with the idea of addressing in- door air quality (IAQ), a new, more comprehen- sive concept is coming into vogue: "indoor envi- ronmental quality" (IEQ). According to Philip J. Bierbaum, director of physical sciences and en- gineering for NIOSH, IAQ-associated com- AT3T's Mitler. •Total Indoor enelranmental quality Is a better, monr arate, but we can't look at indoor air without con- sidering the other issues." "Total indoor environ- mental quality is a better, more inclusive term for dealing with the concerns of white-collar workers," added AT&T industrial hygienist Al Miller, who serves as chairman of the National Environmental Development Assn.'s To- tal Indoor Environmental Inclusive term...• Q I' TIEQ C 1'ti ua tt ( ) oa t on plaints of eye, nose, and throat irrita- tion, headaches, dizziness, fatigue, and nausea cannot always be explained by indoor air factors (chemical and micro- biological contaminants, inadequate ventilation, and environmental tobacco smoke) alone. He said NIOSH, which is pushing the IEQ concept, has found that these symptoms are a result of multiple factors, with indoor air, er- gonomics, workplace stress, worksta- tion lighting, and other concerns proba- bly playing a role. "We're getting away from using the term indoor air quality because what we've found is you can solve the indoor air problem and not eliminate the symptoms," Bierbaum said. "A lot of consequences of psychosocial stress are the same as what we might expect from poor air quality. We don't know if these effects are additive, synergistic, or sep- y , a Washington, D.C., nonprofit business group formed earlier this year. "When you look at the irritant-level health ef- fects people are alleging in most cases, I think it's questionable that they could be occurring only because of the indoor air. But if you add some stress and er- gonomic concerns, perhaps that's when the problems start to show up. Psy- chosocial factors [how people interact] also appear to be a factor, but we don't know how important they are." Experts predicted that we'll be hearing much more about indoor environmental quality, which they said will focus on en- suring that employees are comfortable and productive, as well as free from ill- ness and disease - a kind of worksite- specific wellness program. Look for EPA and OSHA to take a similar tack in future research, rulemaking, and enforcement activities, experts advised. Aueu,t 1992 /Occupational Hazards 33

. 0 0 I where building owners have been sued by a tenant company's employees al- leging adverse health effects. Employ- ees have also sought, and won, work- ers' compensation benefits for IAQ health effects. As a preventive measu re, experts rec- ommend that the minimum airflow in buildings from the outside be main- tained at 20 cubic feet per minute per person, as suggested by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, son employers and building owners be- go in and start monitoring or do a me- come interested in indoor air quality. chanical evaluation," Reynolds said. "I For example, a couple of years ago, after really believe in talking to the people receiving a number of IAQ complaints, first, especially if psychosocial factors AT&T Senior Industrial Hygiene Engi- appear to be involved. Generally, the neer Al Miller assembled a task force things people are complaining about and convened a two-day conference for should get first priority." key company managers on indoor air Some individual worker problems are quality. These events ultimately led tott not difficult to resolve and can be solved the drafting of the company's 88-page of without additional investigation. But book of IAQ guidelines. It includes ad- in a lot of other cases, Reynolds said, in- vice on investigating IAQ concerns and vestigators should take the next step and WHAT 00 THESE SYMPTOMS SUGGEST? Thermal discamfort Check HVAC condition and measure temperature and humitlity. Also check for drafts and stagnant areas. Headache, lethargy, nausea, drowsiness, dizziness Congestion; swelling, itching, or irritatlon of eyes, nose, or throat; dry throat; or nonspecific symptoms Cough; shortness of hreath; lever, chills, and/or fatigue Diagnosed infection If onset was acute, arrange tor medical evaluation, because carbon monoxide poisoning may be the problem. Check combustion sources and overall ventilation. May be allergic il small number of people allecled. II many people affecled look for sources of irritating chemicals such as folmaldehyde, Check for gross microbial canlaminalion due lo sanilalion problems, waier damage, or contaminated HVAC system. May be Legionnaire's disease or hisloplasmosis, related to hactelia or fungi. Contact the state or local health depadmeni. Sourm "euiltlingAirGualilyAGuidefareuitdingownersantlFacililyManagers; EPAMIDSN.Decembert991. and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) voluntary consensus stan- dard 62-1989. ASHRAE standard 55- 1981 on "Thermal Environmental Con- ditions for Human Occupancy" recommends that office buildings have a temperature of between 68.5-76.0 F in winter'and 73-79 F in summer for maxi- mum worker comfort. Employers should also be aware of potential IAQ problems during times of renovation and maintenance, advised Randall J. Dean, a building contractor defense attorney with the Los Angeles law firm of Chapman & Glucksman. "If there is a red flag for indoor air, it's, the impact that renovation can have," Dean said. "What was adequate for nor- mal operations may not be adequate during renovation or after it's been done." Dean noted that many experts recommend that the main H V AC system be isolated from the areas being reno- vated and that redesigned work areas be closely monitored for changes in airflow. Employee complaints are a major rea- 34 Occupational Hazards/August 1992 diagnosing IAQ health effects. The AT&T guidelines, which are sim- ilar to those in the EPA/NIOSH publi- cation "Building Air Quality: A Guide for Building Owners and Facility Man- agers," stress the need for a multidisci- plinary approach to investigating IAQ complaints, involving occupational health professionals, engineers, physi- cians, facilities experts, and human re- sources staff. Consultants are useful, Ford's Lick said, when a facility lacks in-house expertise or when there needs to be a third-party "tiebreaker" be- tween the building owner and tenant or between employees and the employer. Most experts say employee complaints are enough to spark indoor air quality in- vestigations and should be the basis of those investigations. Professor Reynolds recommends starting with people who have seen a doctor for their problems, have taken other documented action (i.e. left work early), or are complaining of some type of unique symptom. "The temptation of many people is to determine the extent of the problem by talking to people in other work areas and on other floors. "Indoor air is an area where if you do something for some people and not for others, people could feel slighted," HBPs Price said. Getting Feedback Experts differ on the best way to eval- uate overall worker perceptions of the indoor air quality. Some people, inctud- ing consultant Rabinovitz, advocate the use of surveys to target problem areas. "If management is thinking about do- ing something, you've already reached the stage where everybody assumes there's a problem. Employees are prob- ably upset and think management is hiding something. You may as well get the issue out in the open and get the employees involved," Rabinovitz said. Though supporting employee in- volvement, other experts don't neces- sarily like the idea of doing broad- based surveys. Ford's Lick, for example, uses focus groups as an alter- native way to gain employee input. "The one thing we definitely don't recommend is doing a buildingwide questionnaire," HBI's Price said. "Some percentage of people are going to say they have a problem just because you asked them," "If you do a survey, you have to re- member what you're getting," attomey Dean said. "Solicited complaints have to be looked at svith a greater degree of skepticism than unsolicited complaints. If you do a survey and 20 percent of the people say they have problems, that may not be significant. But if 20 percent of the people come forward on their own, that is significant." Walk-throughs, visual inspection of the ventilation system, and analyzing employee complaints will usually tell you if you have IAQ problems and where the hot spots are. Sampling for individual contaminants, i.e. formalde- rownlnn paYr 36 2074144215

GOVERNMENT ON THE BANDWAGON • ut re ,d d a .r r- Y e ,f S. C . 16 EPA and other federal agencies are bet- ter-equipped than ever to address the is- sue of indoor air quality (IAQ), Robert Axefrad, director of EPA's Indoor Air Div., said at a roundtable session during the American Industrial Hygiene Confer- ence & Exposition (AIHCE) in June. In 1990, EPA's Science Advisory Board identified poor indoor air quality as one of the top five environmental risks to human health. Since then, Axelrad said, the agency has stepped up its efforts to re- spond to indoor air problems. He noted that EPA spent only $350,000 of its multi- billiondollar budget on IAQ in fiscal 1989. However, for fiscal 1993, which begins Oct. 1,1992, Axelrad reported that EPA has asked for $6 million to fund its IAQ policy- making program and $7 million to fund ' IAQ research. "Indoor air is moving up the agenda;' Axeirad said. "This is a lot of money to spend on an area where we don't have a specific legislative mandate (like EPA does for outside air or solid waste). We could be looking for a smoking gun in the indoor air business for a long, long time. What we're trying to do is transfer what we already know to the key people." Axelrad said EPA has been focusing on the development of guidelines to help building managers address indoor air quality during design, construction, maintenance, renovation, and routine operation of public and private facilities. EPA has installed IAQ coordinators in each of its 10 regional offices to provide - technical assistance to building owners and facility managers. In December 1991, EPA and NIOSH published a 230-page manual, "Building Air Quality: A Guide for Building Owners and Facility Man- agers" agers" (No. S/N 055-000-00390-4), which :'is available for $24 from: New Orders, Superintendent of Documents, Box ~ 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. : In the area of research, EPA is studying . sources and emission rates of pollutants, a variety of neurobehavioral and sensory health effects, and the assessment,Qf in- door air risks. Axelrad said a mulfimil- lion-dollar long-term study, the Building Assessment Survey and Evaluation (BASE) program, is aimed at developing . standardized solutions to IAQ problems. EPA is one of more than 20 federal agencies, along with OSHA, NIOSH, Dept. of Defense, and General Services - Administration, on the Interagency Com- mittee on Indoor Air Quality (CIAQ), which is coordinating the federal govern- ment's indoor air efforts. OSHA OSHA has received some 1,200 com- ments in response to its Sept. 29, 1991, Bierbaum said that NIOSH, which spends 2 percent of its $103 million FY 1992 budget on indoor air, is also doing research on•sampling methods for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and biological agents. IAQ request for information on the ne& . Congressional Pressure for an indoor air regulation, according to EPA's Axelrad acknowledged that Debra A. Janes of OSHA's health stan- dards office. Janes told AIHCE attendees in early June that OSHA had not decided if it will proceed with the rulemaking. She hinted that that decision might not be made until after the November general election. If OSHA does attempt rulemak- ing, she said, it will likely focus on venti- lation performance, worker training, source control, and technical assistance. Since issuing a compliance directive on some of the federal agencies' interest in indoor air is the result of recent Congressional pressure. In an October 1991 report, Congress' General Ac- counting Office concluded that "fed- eral efforts are not effectively address- ing" indoor air pollution, mostly due to insufficient funding. Several congressmen have offered legislative solutions. In the Senate, the Indoor Air Act of 1991(S. 455), authored OSHA's Debra Janes: "The lack of a standard hinders the solving of indoor air quality problems." indoor air quality in September 1990, by Sen. George Mitchell (D, Maine), Janes said, OSHA has conducted 140 in-would authorize $48.5 million for IAQ spections in response to employee com-research. The bill passed the full Senate, plaints about poor indoor air quality. If 88-7, late last year. citations are warranted, the agency uses In the House, an IAQ bill originally the general duty clause in the absence of a introduced by Rep. Joseph Kennedy (D, standard. "The lack of a standard hinders Mass.), H.R. 1066, was being reworked the solving of indoor air quality prob- at press time, with the assistance of Rep.. 11 lems;" Janes acknowledged. - . . Robert Andrews (D, N.J.). The less strin- In March, the AFL-CIO petitioned gent revision is expected to mandate OSHA to issue an indoor air quality stan- that OSHA write an IAQ standard only dard "promptly." In addition, for several if a specific number pr percentage of years, Action on Smoking and Health has ` workers complain of IAQ-related prob- been urging OSHA to regulate, and even- lems, and to more closely mirror the tually ban, workplace smoking. Despite Senate bill's focus on research. The orig- thepefitions,Janessaid,OSHA'stimetable inal bill would have required that is unlikely to change. - OSHA issue an IAQ standard. - At press time, it appeared unlikely NIOSH . that the House bill would get to the Philip J. Bierbaum, director of floor for a vote before the November. NIOSH's Div. of Physical Sciences and general election. The House could de- Engineering, reported at the AIHCE cide to vote on the Senate bill, and if it's that his agency has responded to more approved, send it to President Bush for than 1,100 requests for technical assis- , his possible signature. Throughout the tance on indoor air quality issues since current 102nd Congress, however, Bush the late 1970s. NIOSH also receives Administration officials have opposed about 200 IAQ-related inquiries a lAQlegislationandarguedthatcurrent month through its 800 number (800-356- efforts and funding levels are enough to 4674), he reported. address the indoor air problem. Augu,t 1992/Occupational Hazards 35

• roMinurd jronr lagN1 hyde, and comparing the results with established industrial standards i5 sel- dom warranted. "Air sampling is a last resort because it really doesn't tell you anything," Ford's Lick said. "We have our own lab that can analyze 150,000 different chemicals, but we know the levels we're dealing with will be way below the permissible exposure limits." Monitoring for carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide can be useful, how- ever. High levels of carbon dioxide, AT&T's Miller said, would indicate that not enough outdoor air is getting inside. According to Price, levels of carbon monoxide should not exceed 9 ppm, the maximum outdoor concentration rec- ommended by EPA, and be nowhere near the 35 ppm permissible exposure limit set by OSHA. "If you had a level of 35 ppm of carbon monoxide in the office environment, you'd be taking workers out on stretchers," he said. Controls According to HBI research, the most common solutions to indoor air prob- chemical'orp Tomakeweldin ..., g product created ~umes andodors disappear quickly Coppus offers: industrial quality super strong •"~ portable ventilators - air, eledrij, lems are improving maintenance of the HVAC system and ensuring that the system is meeting ASHRAE's rec- ommendations. In case after case, these simple measures have substan- tially reduced complaints about a vari- ety of health effects, according to Bill Borwegen, director of health and safety, Service Employees Interna- tional Union, which gets more com- plaints from its members on indoor air quality than any other health and safety issue. Another option is to simply ban cer- tain activities that are likely contribu- tors to indoor air problems. This could include, Reynolds said, banning the use of certain chemicals, renovation and maintenance activities during the workday, and workplace smoking. If smoking is permitted, Reynolds said, certain areas should be set aside for this purpose and should be separately ven- tilated to the outdoors. "You could do nothing else but ban smoking, and I think that would have a noticeable impact," Reynolds said. However, he noted that complaints about a smoky environment are proba- steam, water, gas models. AII excelRent for fume removal, confined space, 1 product and people cooling. Don't Gamble with the Health and Safety of Your Employees. WRITE OR FAX FOR CATALOG. r~ l.q'S..lri1 Asr'M6ia ~t ENGINEERING CORP. Box Number 15003 Warcester, MA 01615-0003 USA Tel: (508) 756-8393 Fax: (508) 799-9531 Also Zurich, Switzerland; Singapore e 1991 Coppus Eng. Corp. Circle no, 100 on reader service card 30 ttuaupatianal Haaard./Auguat 100 bly an indicator of poor ventilation - a more pervasive problem. "In most of the cases I've seen, ban- ning smoking has not changed the fre- quency of complaints," Rabinovitz said. "What that suggests is that com- r4aints about smoking are a symptom of a much larger indoor air problem or that psychosocial factors do play a very large role. People want to know that their needs are being addressed." HBI's Price said the goal of indoor air quality programs should be to make at least 80 percent of the people feel healthy and comfortable, and move to- ward accommodating everyone. To ac- complish this, he said, the more the em- ployer or building manager believes psychosocial factors are impacting worker perceptions about indoor air quality, the more important it is to in- volve workers in the program. Price's advice to employers: "If there was a problem, admit it, fix it, and be glad the employee pointed it out because, otherwise, your people costs are going to continue to go up and your productivity is going to con- tinue to go down." YOV'VE NEVER I3AD IT SO GOOD . . . TheYdZS Whole HouseAlrQeanerfram TRION now comes with the exclusive A7C sensor. The A7C is an advancGd electronic sensor capable of detecting air movement 10 trmes mo re eff e ctively tha n conventional mechanical switches, found in other air cleaners. The YAS g isup to95Xeffictentinremov- Ing airborne pollutants such as particu- late tobacco smoke, animal dander, crook- ing grease, dust, mold, and pollen. The advanced duct-mounted MAX 5 air cleaner comes with these feamres: • Inpl aua auroul -li.e. LEn Indlnw,. • aVP,Beqi,m6'pW.epm.er^,pp1Y • on. pMuvrt.pncund.W ubietup.Lle nf.uppnrtlna a 1UU TA aun.o • 'Iw4, pe,m.nenl ayLwnclmer wn.cen( m. • opacaridWmJwrtor.. The YAIg tseasfly tnsta9edand requires minimal matntenance. Several siu opp tlons make the at.1Z a Ideal for any cen- tral heating or cooling system. For reliability, performance, value, and the latest technology ... TRUST TRIONt Trion Incorporated P.O. Box 760 Sanford, NC 27330 Phone (919) 775-2201 Fax:(919)7748771 Circle no. 101 on reader service card

Page g Indoor Air Review October, 1992 Using Tested Products May Provide Protection from Lawsuits i . 0 -By Laurence S. Kirsch, Esq. & Gcnldine E. Edens, Fsq. T he growing number of "sick building syndrome" (SBS) law- srilts has caused individuals, buslnesses and others who may find themselves _~ ~~ cmbroiled in ~W AUYIC9 thesc cases to search for means of limiting their potential Iiability Fortunately, oppor- tunines do exist for minimizing the risk ofindnor airrelated liabiliry, Pmd- uct testing and the use oftested prod- ucts present two such important op- serve as important indicators that a portunivcs. Individuals allegedly injured by in- door air pollution frcquently proceed under two Iegal theories, negligence and strict Sabiliry. Negligence is a fail- ure to exercise due care. Due care is defined as the degree of care that would be exercised by a"reasonable person." Individuals may be found negligent in the performance of scr- vices or in the manufacture of produets, For example, in Call v. Prudential Insurance CoofAmttia (1990) the I plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were negligent be- cause, among other things, they failed to: • Properly evaluate, test and investigate for toxic fumes, chemicals and other substances that produced SBS; • Balance the air conditioning systcm to produce a sufficient outside air/re<ydcd air ration spread Adequately throughout the entire building; and • Use building materials that were incapable of off-gassing formaldehyde and other noxious substances. The case was sct- tlcd for an undis- closcd amount. Neverttteless, failing to te5t for indoor air pollutants, failing ro design an adequate HVAC system and failing to ux °sak" products in a building constituted the basis for the asserted liability, In a negligence action, the plaintiff must show the dc- I fcndant's conduct was unreasonable, that is, the defcn- dant failed to use due care. It is in this context that product testing informa- tion can provc im- portant Product testing can provide valuable inform, tion on a product's characteristics. The efforts to use tested products may party exercised due care. For example, where scientific or industry literature indicatcs or establishes that certain products do not contribute or do not have a signiFicant potential to com tsibutc to indoor air pollution, a court or jury may be morc likely to vicw the party using those products as having exerciscd reasonablc care. Conversely, if architects, designers or contractors spocify a product without knowing the risks associated with that product, they could be sued on the theory that, as profcssionals in the industry, they should have known that the products praented a risk. Strict Liability Another common basis of liability for indoor air pollution is strict )iability, Strict liability appGcs to liability for dc fcctivc products. This theory, unlike the negligcnce based theory, does not depend on "fault." Instead, the focus of legal inqttiry shifts from the conduct of a par- ty to the product itself. A product can be defective either because of its man- ufactwc or its design. For example, if urea formaldehyde foam insulation were to off-gas formaldehyde vapors because the constituent chemicals werc not mixed in the proper proportions, the product might be considered to have a manufacturing defect. On the other hand, a mobile home that com tains dangerous components or that doa not permit sufficient ventilation may be deemed defectivcly designed (Heritage v. Pioneer Brokerage & Sales 1979). If a product is found to be d<fcctivc and was the cause of the plaintifFs in. jrrties, then liability may extend m ev- ery entity involved in the chain ofdistribution of that product. In accor dance with this principle, the judge in thc Call case ruled prior to trial that the designers, general contractors and installers of the building's HUAC sys tem could be held liable under a strict liability theory if the jury determined that the ventilation system was ci tivc. Thus, the HVAC system was deemed a"producq" and every entity involvcd in the chain of designing, constructing and installing the system would be potentially liable for the plaintifPs injuries. Similarly, in some jurisdictions, a building indf may be deemed a product subject to strict products liability (McDonald v. Mia- neck [1979J). Liability Suits Attracrive The relative easc of recovery under a strict liability theory makes product li- ability suits attractive to plaintif&. For the same rcason, they arc dreaded by deRndanrs. The key limitation of strict liability in the indoor air environment is that it applies only to products. Hovrcver, to the extent courts are willing to dcem an HVAC system or an entire building a product, exposure to indoor air Iia- bility becomes significantly greater for product designers and manufacturers, buildcrs and inshllcrs. In view of the expansivc reach uf strict liability, the willingness of courts to consider HVAC systems and build- ings as "products," and the flexible standard of due care, the use of thnn oughly tested products is a scnsihlc means of avoiding liability. The Supreme Court of Connecticut has noted, °thc crcativc or authoritativc source of both design spccifications and pmduct testing information is ... of matcrial significance to the aazsigm mcnt of liability" in a product liabilinaction. Pickcrts v. International Plaw tax,Inc.1990). A Good Model A model of such product trsting is bc ing conducted by the fiber glass msula- tion industry in conjunction with EPA. Fiber glass fibers belong to a category ofsubstances called man-made vitr<nus flbers or man-made mineral fibers, which are used primarily for insulation purposei. Because of a concern that respirable fibers may become airborne, the fiber glass industry has taken the initiative to test fiber glass ductwork used in air-handling systems. One study, perfbrmed by independent scientists at a university in conjunction with the EPA, evaluated rigid fiber glass ductwork to determine whether it shed glass fibers (Butmcr and Stcv-cm bach 1992). The study found that new fiber glass duct board did not rdcase a measurable number of glxss fibcrs into the air, which supports earlier research by the industry and other thhird partics. To address a concern assodated with all HVAC systems, a second study is planned to determine whether rigid fiber glass or fiber glass-lines ductwnrk supports microbiological growth. This study will also determine if microbialogical agents are dispersed into room air serviced by either Fiber glass or sheet metal ducting, Consequently, the findinga of this second study will pro- vide a reliable measure of whether fun- gal growth in ductwork affccts indoor a'u quality. Negligence and strict liability ar tions are by their nature inherenrly un prcdictable. Different judges or jurfas hced with similar ficts and legal nc, - ries may reach opposite u>nclusinns Further, in some cases, defendants may be required nut only to compensate the plaintiffs for dic injuries suffered but also pay punitive damages, The potential financial impact on the busi. ness community is trcm<ndous. Ab though there is no absolute shield from SBS lawsuits, the use of products which have been tested and found not to contribute to indoor air pollution problems can provide a valuable dc- knse against liability. lnurence Kirsch Is a partner reirh (he laru frrm of Cadaalader, Wicker- sham & Taft, specfaliztng in tbejrrac- lice of enrnronmentai laru. Geraldmr E. Edens is an associnte tWth the firm.

0 • ~~~,~ POLI SUES United States Moves Toward IAQ Regulations The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), in September 1991, began the ambitious task of obtain- ing information on indoor air quality. Their goal is to determine whether regulatory action is appropriate and. if so, the extent to which it is feasible to address issues rela- tive to poor indoor air quality.'Ihe OSHA request for information specifically tzr- geted five broad areas: the definition of and the health affects pertaining to indoor air quality; monitoring and exposure assess- ment; control mechanisms including ven- tilation, filtration and source management; local policies and practices and the sug- gested content of potential regulations. Health complaints related to indoor air quality have increased significantly follow- ing energy conservation measures insti- tuted in the early 1970's. These measures reduced the levels of outside air entering the newly-designed airtight buildings, re sulting in the accumulations of all forms of airborne pollution inside the buildings. OSHA pointed out that during the past decade, the National Institute for Occupa- tional Safety and Health (NIOSH) has con- ducted over 500 health hazard evaluations for indoor air quality. These studies were workplace investigations conducted at the invita- tion of the employers to determine the presence of health hazards and to recommend measures to remove them. The main types of problems encountered in these investigations involved contamination both inside and outside the buildings. Inadequate venti- lation was a major culprit, but the con- taminants included microbes, emissions from building materials and furnishings, chemicals used inside the buildings and some contamination from unknown sources. Specifically, OSHA requested informa- tion on carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, bioaerosols, radon, tobacco smoke and volatile organic compounds. With ten years of practical experience in the field of indoor air quality, HBI responded to OSHA's request for information and fo- cused on several important themes. 6 iuNiius\in,,,..N ~~,i.2 n, ,.-~ Building Systems Approach The building systems approach to in- door air quality is the most effective, prac- tical and economic path to improved in- door air quality in all types of buildings. Adupting this approach begins with adopt- ing a ventilation standard similar to that established by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Condition- ing Engineers Standard 62-89,"/entilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality." This standard was developed and based on "real-life" feedback from architects, engi- neers, consumer organizations, health of- ficials, medical researchers, building own- ers and operators, and consumers. Their experience showed that 20 cubic feet per minute (10 f/sec) of outside air per per- son in an office setting was effective in con- trolling indoor pollutants. This standard did away with the old two-tier standard which differentiated between smoking and non-smoking environments, Another aspect of the building sys- tems approach to indoor air quality is the proper maintenance and selection of air filters in commercial buildings. To main- tain the proper maintenance and selection of these filters, specific standards must be developed for commercial offices. Un- til then, however, the ASHRAE-recom- mended 35 to 60 percent efficiency stan- dard (by the ASHRAE 52-76 dust spot test) should be adopted for commercial buildings. These filters should also be carefully fitted and routinely sen-iced. Our research found that in more than 700 buildings examined over the past ten years, 43 percent did not meet the ASHRAI: filter recommendations and a

0 Respiratory Tract Infe<tions Are the Most Common Infettious Illnesses Among Humans Estimated to Annually Cause in the United States: 76 ~ Million ~\• ~ - r Y _ • • r further 16 percent of the buildings had good filters that were poorly installed, thereby reducing their efficiency. If a decision is made to assure accepD able indoor air quality in commercial build- ings by the use of regulation, a compre- hensive regulatory approach would neces sitate 0S1iA to become involved with the complete issue, including the development of design guidelines and practices, a build- ing commissioning practice, maintenance standards, renovation procedures,and pos- sibly standard-setting for indoor air qual- ity technology, Proactive Monitoring Adopting preventive maintenance poli- cies will avoid other inefficient, short-term solutions to solving indoor air quality problems. A proactive monitoring pro- gram that measures indoor air quality parameters every six months should also take a detailed took at the heating, venti- lation and air conditioning (HVAC) sys- tem of the building. This detailed inves6- gation determines how the system is maintained and whether it is clean and operating correctly. The results of these investigations guides the buildings facili- ties manager in achieving and maintain- ing acceptable indoor air quality. Proactive monitoring programs are also a management tool that provides fa- cilities managers with feedback on the success of their operating philosophies. These programs help to spot trends in a building s air quality and allows manage- ment to make changes in operations to achieve and maintain acceptable indoor air quality within the building and are ac- Gvely managing it. The Healthy Buildings Concept This unique approach to building de- sign and construction strives to create good indoor air environments that ensure comfort and productivity for employees by using "environmentally friendly" materials and innovative design concepts. The healthy buildings approach has helped property developers effectively market and promote their buildings in the volatile r'2Ce COSZS property management marketplace. An im- proved environment for building tenants leads to better productivity and yields sig- nificant savings on costs associated with employee absenteeism. Two typical examples of these con- cepts were described. The first was the major renovation project of the Four Millbank Building in London, England. This project, undertaken by the Swedish company, Anders Nisses, was outtined in the July/August 1991 issue of this maga- zine. The renovation involved the use of a raised access floor for all the office ar- eas coupled with an innovative underfloor ventilation system.'Ihe result is an unusu- ally high standard of indoor air quality and a totally flexible design that can eas- ily accommodate major changes in staff occupancy rates. The second example was the Melbourne Tower project in the City of Melbourne, Australia. This building, fea- tured in the March/April 1991 edition of this magazine, features a high tech pol- lutant sensor feedback system. These sensors, designed by Staefa Control Sys- tems, provide real time monitoring of in- ~ _-rJ~' ~ door air quality and are integrated into the ventilation system controls such that the ventilation rates are automatically adjusted for both temperature and air quality conditions. These examples. and many others. demonstrate the practicality of a building systems approach to achieving good in- door air quality in the workplace. This ap- proach is much more than simply an in- crease in ventilation and is clearly the most effective, practical and economic path to better indoor air quality in all types of buildings. If OSHA determines that regulatory action is needed, their approach should be pragmatic, effective and not onerous to an already pressured business community. An inescapable conclusion remains: With innovative technological develop- ments, with well-developed proactive moni- toring programs and with the building sys- tems approach, OSHA has many options which have a track-record of long-term success. If 05t-fA regulates indoor air qual- ity by simply setting standards on indi- vidual pollutants alone, the outcome will be much less predictable. .-=-11111h HEALTHY BUILDINGSINTERNATa]NAI. Maeazine • Vol.? No ' 7 E 2074144220

r +,~d A 'J080g R1i-20L