11020 W 122nd Street Overland Park, KS 66213 (913) 469-6653 (phone) (913) 322-2237 (fax) email: [email protected]

Evaluation of Environmental Tobacco Smoke in Six Restaurants in Overland Park, Kansas

At: Bob Evans, Johnny’s Tavern, Nick and Jakes Houlihans, Mimi’s, and Tanner’s

Conducted July 28 and August 1, 2005

Contact: Jim Twigg (913) 895-6273 (office) (913) 219-8709 (cell)

Susan Flappan, MS, CIH President

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BACKGROUND 3

SAMPLING PROCEDURES 3

RESULTS 4

DISCUSSION 5

RESPIRATORY SYSTEM PARTICLE DEPOSITION 6

CONCLUSIONS 6

APPENDIX 1- DATA 7

APPENDIX 2- GRAPHS OF RSP 0.5SUPPLEMENT 1- ASHRAE STANDARD 62-2001 FOR NONSMOKING ENVIRONMENTS 8

APPENDIX 2- GRAPHS OF RSP 0.5SUPPLEMENT 1- ASHRAE STANDARD 62-2001 FOR NONSMOKING ENVIRONMENTS 8

SUPPLEMENT 2: ASHRAE STATEMENTS REGARDING SMOKING RESTAURANTS 10

Flappan Consulting, Inc. ETS in OP Restaurants Page 2 Background

The City of Overland Park is doing a comparative study to investigate environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) contaminant levels in three classifications of restaurants: smoking-restricted (has a completely enclosed room with separate ventilation system to the outside, plus filtration); smoking establishment (has smoking and non-smoking sections) and smoke-free. ETS includes second-hand smoke (tobacco smoke exhaled into the air) and sidestream smoke (from the burning of a cigarette). ETS emissions contain both particle and vapour phase contaminants.

Many different ETS particle and vapour phase contaminants can be sampled. Some of these contaminants, like nicotine and solenesol, require long-term collection periods (7-8 hours), plus lab analysis, but are specifically related to tobacco smoke. Others contaminants, like respirable particle levels and carbon monoxide, can be measured using direct read-out instruments, but are non-specific for tobacco smoke since these contaminants can be due to other activities (e.g., cooking, additional combustion sources, or ambient background).

According to a study conducted by Leaderer and Hammon in 1991, “Environmental nicotine levels have been shown to correlate well with levels of respiratory suspended particulates (RSP)”. http://www7.health.gov.au/nhmrc/publications/reports/smoking/chap2/sec1.htm Thus, a direct read laser particle counter was used for this study, as well as two other direct read out instruments. These types of instruments have the advantage of being less intrusive and more cost and time efficient.

Sampling procedures

On July 28 and August 1, 2005, Susan Flappan, CIH, from Flappan Consulting, Inc. and Jim Twigg from the City of OP visited six restaurants in Overland Park to measure concentrations of: a) particulates (six categories); (b) carbon monoxide; c) total volatile organics (VOC’s); and d) carbon dioxide. The restaurants visited were classified into one of the following categories: a) has an enclosed smoking room (Bob Evans); b) has a specified smoking section (Johnny’s Tavern, Houlihans, Nick and Jake’s); or c) is a smoke free establishment (Mimi’s). Additionally, one restaurant/bar was visited that claimed it did not have smoking restrictions (Tanner’s). Five of the restaurants were visited during the breakfast or lunch hour. Tanner’s was visited during the early and late evening hours. Both smoking and non-smoking areas were tested.

The particle levels were measured with a direct read, hand held ARTI laser diode particle counter (HHPC-6). Sample volume was set to collect one liter of air (or 0.001 m3). Six different channels measured particle levels in the 0.5µ, 0.7µ, 1.0µ, 2.0µ, 5.0µ, and 10.0µ size ranges (µ= micron). Digital read-outs represent particles in the thousands (multiply by 103). Read-out values were hand recorded.

Flappan Consulting, Inc. ETS in OP Restaurants Page 3 The carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, temperature and humidity were measured with the TSI Q- Trak 8551. This instrument measures carbon dioxide levels in parts per million (ppm) with a non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) sensor. The carbon monoxide levels are measured with an electro-chemical sensor having a resolution of 1 ppm. The TSI 8551 humidity sensor is a thin- film capacitive measuring relative humidities ranging from 5 to 95%. The temperature is measure with a thermistor sensor. Values obtained were hand recorded.

The volatile organic chemicals were measured with the MultiRAE-Plus personal gas monitor that has a 10.6 eV Photo Ionization Detector (PID). This measures volatile compounds with ionization potentials at 10.6 eV or less. The limit of detection was set at 0.1 ppm.

All instruments were appropriately calibrated before use.

Results

Results showed that respirable particulates (under 5.0 microns in size) were consistently elevated in smoking sections or rooms in comparison to the non-smoking areas. As test locations moved further away from the smoking section or room, the particulate level decreased. As more smokers lit up cigarettes, the respirable particle levels increased. [See tables and graphs]

The carbon monoxide measurements did not show a consistent correlation with degree of smoke. At Bob Evans, the carbon monoxide sensor measured up to 1-2 ppm (parts per million). In Johnny’s Tavern, it went as high as 3 ppm in the poolroom area, which contained the most ETS in the restaurant. However, carbon monoxide was undetected at Tanner’s.

The Volatile Organic Chemical measurement did not correlate with the degree of ETS present. Chemicals in the VOC category include tobacco smoke contaminants benzene, toluene, acrylonitrile, styrene, isoprene and formaldehyde. This turned out to be an inaccurate and/or insensitive instrument.

Carbon dioxide measurements are a surrogate for adequate fresh air ventilation. When carbon dioxide levels are high, other indoor contaminants are also likely accumulating and additional fresh air ventilation is recommended. Currently ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers) recommends that Carbon Dioxide levels not exceed 700 ppm over outdoor conditions (ASHRAE 62-2001). Using this guideline, most measurements were fine; however, the pool room in Johnny’s Tavern and Tanner’s (11pm) showed borderline high levels with the rooms less than fifty percent occupied. During higher occupancy, concentrations would likely be much more elevated. [In 2002, ASHRAE added an “Informative Appendix” to Standard 62-2001 suggesting ventilation rates for places where smoking is permitted. Please see Supplements at the end of the report.]

Flappan Consulting, Inc. ETS in OP Restaurants Page 4 Discussion

At Bob Evans, with only two smokers present in the separated, closed-door smoking room, the 0.5 µ particle level reached a level similar as to what was found at 11 pm in Tanner’s. This may be due to the small room size (less volume, therefore higher concentration of particles per volume of air) and/or the proximity and direction of the smoke. Carbon dioxide measurement indicated the presence of plenty of fresh air dilution, so the ventilation system appeared to be operating effectively. The tables just outside of the smoking room showed sub-micron (<1µ) particle levels were twice as high as they were on the other side of the restaurant. This indicates that some of the smoke contaminants may escape the isolated area when doors open and close. As measurements were taken further away from the smoking room, particle contaminant levels continued to drop. The waiting area in Bob Evans showed the air was better indoors than the outside in all particle categories, except for the 0.5µ size category.

Johnny’s Tavern was tested during the early part of the lunch hour. The hallway entrance into the restaurant had higher levels of particles in the submicron range than the outdoors. The non- smoking tables had particle levels around 42000 in the 0.5µ category. The smoking bar had 0.5µ particle levels in the 155000 range and the back pool room, which is completely used as a smoking area, had levels in the 197000 range. Carbon monoxide levels likewise increased slightly in the back pool room.

Nick and Jake’s had a non-smoking eating area, a non-smoking bar and a smoking bar/eating area. Particle levels in the 0.5µ range were 57000, 77000 and 182000 respectively. What is noteworthy in this restaurant is the relatively high level of particles in non-smoking areas.

Houlihan’s was visited on a Monday at lunchtime. Only one smoker consuming one cigarette was present during the entire hour of the visit. Non-smoking and smoking sections had similar particle counts (around 11000 in the 0.5µ range). This supports the evidence that particle levels are related to the number of cigarettes and the number of smokers present. If there is virtually no smoking occurring, particle levels are not affected.

Mimi’s, a smoke free establishment, was also visited on a Monday. The air inside the restaurant, adjacent to the counter, had lower submicron particle counts than the outside air at a busy intersection (95th & Quivera) in Johnson County.

Tanner’s reportedly does not have an area reserved for non-smokers. Occupancy levels on a Monday evening and night were a lot lower than maximum capacity. Submicron particle levels in the 0.5µ range were high (between 81000 to 172000), depending on how many cigarettes were being consumed and the proximity of testing to smokers.

Flappan Consulting, Inc. ETS in OP Restaurants Page 5 The unknown variable(s) in this study are details regarding ventilation systems, including how many air exchanges they are set up for, whether there specific filters in use, or if there are separate systems used for smoking and non-smoking areas.

Respiratory system particle deposition

Particles with a diameter of 5 to 30 µ get deposited in the nasopharyngeal region (upper airways- nose, nasal cavity and throat) by impaction. The changes in airflow direction cause the particles to hit the walls of the air passage and then they deposit or settle out.

Smaller particles in the range of 1 to 5 µ are deposited in the tracheobronchial region (trachea) and upper bronchial tubes (upper lungs). At this point, the air has slowed enough for particles to "settle" out.

Particles that are 1 µ in size or smaller can reach the lower lung, or alveolar region. This is where oxygen/carbon dioxide gas exchange takes place. Chemicals or particles that land on the thin alveoli membranes can be absorbed, dissolved or attacked and destroyed by scavenger cells. Some chemicals can damage the surrounding walls or cause scarring.

Conclusions

Results from this set of tests are consistent with findings in other studies that have shown a correlation between the number of cigarettes consumed and respirable particulate levels.1, 2

Eye, nose, and respiratory tract irritations are commonly documented adverse health effects related to exposure to ETS.3 Particle levels contribute significantly to these irritations.

In addition to irritation, at least fifty of the sixty known or suspect carcinogenic chemicals in ETS occur in this (particulate) phase.4 According to a report issued September 2004, smoky bars and casinos can have up to 50 times more cancer-causing particles in the air than highways/city streets clogged with diesel trucks at rush hour.5

1 Leaderer and Hammond 1991. http://www7.health.gov.au/nhmrc/publications/reports/smoking/chap2/sec1.htm 2 Stantec Consulting, Ltd. Environmental Tobacco Smoke Monitoring in Toronto Restaurants and Bars. July, 2004. 3 American Council on Science and Health 4 US Department of Health and Human Services 1986 5 James Repace. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. September, 2004. Flappan Consulting, Inc. ETS in OP Restaurants Page 6 Appendix 1- Data

Flappan Consulting, Inc. ETS in OP Restaurants Page 7 Bob Evans CO CO2 Temp. VOC's 7/28/05 RH % 0.5 0.7 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 Notes ppm ppm ° F ppm Outside 0 419 44.4 76.8 2520 884 569 300 26 0 0 Far away from 0-1 620 50.9 75.4 5486 772 242 66 1 0 0 smoking room Middle of 0 651 51.2 75.4 6915 974 299 66 1 0 0.1-0.2 restaurant Just outside 1 678 46.2 75.5 11342 1405 411 80 0 0 0-0.1 smoking room Smoking room 1-2 644 51.7 72.5 144760 23073 5175 321 2 0 0 2 smokers

Johnny's Tavern CO CO2 VOC's 07/28/05 0.5 0.7 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 Notes ppm ppm ppm Outside 0 394 2560 776 445 238 14 0 0

In hallway entrance, prior 1 464 6960 1985 996 377 2 1 0 to lunch hour Non-smoking, next to 1-2 1031 41949 6729 2061 395 12 0 0 smoking area End of bar (N) 1 1078 154709 24843 5928 582 33 2 0 lower level Upstairs, middle of pool 1-3 1148 196785 34189 7976 617 26 1 0 table room

Nick and Jake's CO CO2 VOC's 7/28/05 0.5 0.7 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 Notes ppm ppm ppm Outside 0 385 1793 565 364 196 16 0 0

Non-smoking 0 882 57472 17816 3893 464 2 0 0 Eating Non-smoking 0 739 76907 16345 5249 561 5 0 0 Bar Smoking Bar- Table next to 2 0 766 181923 46045 15683 1922 27 2 0 smokers

Houlihans CO CO2 VOC's 8/1/05 0.5 0.7 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 Notes ppm ppm ppm Outside 0 400 5020 1118 726 434 45 3 0 Non-smoking 0 790 11532 1660 618 177 10 0 0 section Only 1 Smoking smoker, 0 698 11500 1443 526 146 8 0 0 section 1 cigarette

Mimi's CO CO2 VOC's 0.5 0.7 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 Notes 8/1/05 ppm ppm ppm 0 378.0 5264.0 1227.0 811.0 520.0 6.0 0 0 Outside Inside, by 0.0 562.0 4709.0 801.0 390.0 155.0 6.0 0 0 counter

Tanners

CO CO2 8/1/05 0.5 0.7 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 Notes ppm ppm Outside 0 406 6567 1967 1409 943 94 1

S end, 7:30 pm: 25% 0 880 80958 11303 2813 324 10 0 1-smoker nearby occupied S end, 7:30 pm: 2- smokers 0 880 108652 18753 5039 520 7 0 nearby S end, 11 pm: 50% 0 985 172318 31567 8186 835 29 0 several smokers occupied East side, further further from 0 1099 144532 23835 6641 1119 49 0 from bar, 11pm bar

Appendix 2- Graphs of RSP 0.5

Flappan Consulting, Inc. ETS in OP Restaurants Page 8 Johnny's Tavern Nick and Jake's July 28, 2005 July 28, 2005 11:00 am 12:40 pm 250000 200000

180000

200000 160000

140000 ze 0.5 i 150000 120000 icle S 100000 icle Size 0.5 Part

100000 Part 80000

60000

50000 40000

20000

0 0 Outside Non- Non- Smoking Outside In hallway Non- End of bar Upstairs, smoking smoking Bar-Table entrance, smoking, (N) lower middle of Eating Bar next to 2 prior to next to level pool table smokers lunch hour smoking room area

Bob Evans Tanners July 28, 2005 August 1 8 am 7:30pm and 11pm

160000 200000

180000 140000 160000

120000 140000 5 .

0 120000 ze

100000 i

S 100000 le 80000 80000 rtic le Size 0.5 Pa ic 60000 60000 Part 40000

40000 20000

0 20000 e y y s m id b b p s ar ar e oker 11 Out n ne m r, s s a 0 er r l b ok ke ra o e m t m v ro e n m -s sm se sid om a om o 1 - : r f t ro ur ro ro : 2 Ou ta g g m the king es kin kin m : p r o r o o p m fu m of m m 0 p 11 s le s S 3 0 , e, m dd de 7: 3 id fro i tsi , nd s y M u , 7: e t wa t o nd S as a us e nd E ar J S e F S

Location Location

Mimi's Houlihans August 1, 2005 August 1, 2005 12:45 pm 11:30 am

5400.0 14000

5300.0 12000 5200.0

5100.0 10000

5000.0 0.5 e 8000 4900.0 le Siz ic t 4800.0 icle Size 0.5 6000 Par Part 4700.0 4000

4600.0

2000 4500.0

4400.0 0 Outside Inside, by counter Outside Non-smoking Smoking section section

Supplement 1- ASHRAE Standard 62-2001 for Nonsmoking Environments

1999-2001 ASHRAE spent a decade developing Standard 62-1999, which prescribed ventilation rates for all indoor environments that are smokefree. In 2001, ASHRAE issued Standard 62-2001 which clarified that the standard only applied to smokefree spaces. As a result, ASHRAE does not have a ventilation standard for places where smoking is allowed.

Indoor spaces, including restaurants, are covered by Standard 62-2001 and must be smokefree to be in compliance with the standard. That's why Big Tobacco, its allies, and fronts are pressing ASHRAE for a separate, lower standard for the hospitality industry.

2002 In contradiction with its own standard, the ASHRAE Board of Directors voted to add an "Informative Appendix" to the standard that, while stating that it was not part of the standard, suggested ventilation rates for places (including restaurants, bars, casinos, and offices) where smoking is permitted. The levels of ventilation are so low that they will allow levels of secondhand smoke pollution 2-30 times the level of pollution by fine particles permitted by the US Environmental Protection Agency in outdoor air and thousands of time higher than would be permitted in terms of the cancer-causing chemicals in secondhand smoke. These pollution levels are high enough to trigger immediate heart problems.

Under pressure from the tobacco industry and its allies, ASHRAE's Board also directed that a "guidance document" be prepared for sale on how to ventilate smoking areas even though it admits that it is not possible to achieve acceptable air quality when smoking is present. ASHRAE's Board seems to be trying to protect itself legally by making the official standard smokefree while giving the tobacco industry the de facto ventilation standard it wants. http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/vent/vent_ia.cfm

Flappan Consulting, Inc. ETS in OP Restaurants Page 9 Supplement 2: ASHRAE Statements Regarding Smoking Restaurants

Flappan Consulting, Inc. ETS in OP Restaurants Page 10 FORM FOR SUBMITTAL OF PROPOSED CHANGE TO ASHRAE STANDARD UNDER CONTINUOUS MAINTENANCE

NOTE: Use separate form for each comment. Submittals (MS Word 2000 preferred) may be attached to e-mail (preferred), submitted on diskettes or CD, or submitted in paper by mail or fax to ASHRAE, Manager of Standards, 1791 Tullie Circle, NE, Atlanta, GA 30329-2305. E-mail: [email protected]. Fax +1-404/321-5478.

1. Submitter: Stanton A. Glantz

Affiliation: University of California, San Francisco

Address: Box 1390 City: San Francisco State: CA Zip: 94143 Country: USA

Telephone: 415-476-3893 Fax: 415-514-9345 E-Mail: [email protected]

I hereby grant the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) the non-exclusive royalty rights, including non-exclusive rights in copyright, in my proposals. I understand that I acquire no rights in publication of the standard in which my proposals in this, or other analogous, form is used. I hereby attest that I have the authority and am empowered to grant this copyright release.

Submitter's signature: Stanton A. Glantz Date: July 9, 2003

2. Number and year of standard: 62-2001

3. Clause (section), sub-clause or paragraph number; and page number: Appendix I

4. I propose to: [ ] Change to read as follows [ ] Delete and substitute as follows (check one) [ ] Add new text as follows [X] Delete without substitution

Use underscores to show material to be added (added) and strike through material to be deleted (deleted). Use additional pages if needed.

5. Proposed change: Delete Appendix I in its entirely.

6. Reason and substantiation: See attached pages.

[X] Check if additional pages are attached. Number of additional pages: 4 (5 pages total)

[ ] Check if attachments or referenced materials cited in this proposal accompany this proposed change. Please verify that all attachments and references are relevant, current, and clearly labeled to avoid processing and review delays. Please list your attachments here:

May 13, 2003 1 FORM FOR SUBMITTAL OF PROPOSED CHANGE TO ASHRAE STANDARD UNDER CONTINUOUS MAINTENANCE

The ventilation rates specified in Appendix I are based on faulty assumptions and outdated information.

• The assumed smoking prevalence (proportion of smokers) is low in several cases. Appendix I assumes that only 25% of occupants are smokers in a “bar cocktail lounge” and “Gambling Casino 1.” There are no data presented to support this assumption, despite the fact that these environments are often considered places where many people smoke. Several of the other environments (Dining room 1, Gambling casino 2, Conference room, Game arcade, Bowling alley, and Office) assume that only 20% of people smoke, less than the prevalence of smoking in the adult population (23%1). • The assumed smoking rates are low (Table I-3). For example, they assume only one cigarette smoked per hour per smokers in a bar or cocktail lounge, 1.5 cigarettes per hour in casinos. These are environments where smokers would be expected to smoke more heavily than average, yet no objective data are presented to support this assumption. The assumed level of 0.6 cigarettes/hour in workplaces also seems low. • The required ventilation rates are based on a 22 year old 1983 paper2 (reference 13* in Appendix I). One third of the experimental subjects were smokers, much higher than the 23% of the adult population than smokes today.1 The fact that there was a high proportion of smokers in the test group biases the levels of ventilation necessary for "acceptable" air quality down. Indeed, this paper2 also reported that “None of the conditions in the present investigation [including the level of ventilation used in Appendix I] would satisfy even 2/3 of nonsmokers.”2, p. 1191 • Appendix I ignores a much newer (2001) carefully done study6 which concludes that “Odor thresholds of sets obtained from the olfactory experiments showed that a median odor sensation was perceived at very 3 6, p. 1050 low concentrations equivalent to an ETS-PM2.25 concentration of approximately 0.6-1.4 µg/m .” At about 4.4 µg/m3 only one-third of subjects found the quality of the air acceptable.6, p. 1049 All the experimental subjects were healthy nonsmokers. • Acceptable ventilation levels in smoking lounges and heavy smoking bars are based on “adapted” people only, who have acclimatized to the pollution due to the secondhand smoke, which hides the higher ventilation quantities that would be required in these places even if one accepts the other assumptions in Appendix I. • None of the calculations in Appendix I allow for particularly sensitive people, such as people with asthma, allergies, lung or heart disease, or children, even though such people are likely to be in rooms with secondhand smoke designed according to the recommendations in Appendix I.

All these assumptions bias the results to lower the ventilation rates (and higher levels of secondhand smoke pollution) that will be deemed "acceptable." This procedure is not consistent with good engineering design principles; normally any assumed values are selected to represent “high end” inputs to ensure that the system will respond effectively in real world conditions and be suitable for sensitive people. Even as a minimum ventilation recommendation, it is not good practice to bias all of the assumptions towards the lower end.

The ventilation rates specified in Appendix I will lead to levels of RSP that are well above levels that produce substantial discomfort and also that exceed those established by the US EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

It is possible to estimate the RSP levels that will occur in each of the scenarios in Table I-3 using the relationship

RSP = C0(P/V)sr/Cv where RSP = respirable suspended particulates from secondhand smoke, C0 = RSP emissions per cigarette, (P/V) = occupancy in people / volume, s = percentage of occupants who are smokers, r = rate of smoking (cig/smoker-time), and Cv= ventilation rate (air changes/time). (This equation is the

* The lead author of this paper, W. Cain, has served as a consultant for tobacco companies.3-5

May 13, 2003 2 FORM FOR SUBMITTAL OF PROPOSED CHANGE TO ASHRAE STANDARD UNDER CONTINUOUS MAINTENANCE same steady state mass balance proposed and validated by Repace and Lowry7 and Ott et. al8, 9 written in terms of the variables in Table I-3 of Appendix I.) The table below summarizes the results of these calculations based on the information in Table I-3 of Appendix I (Occupancy, Proportion of Smokers, Smoking Rate, and Total 9, 10 Ventilation Rate). C0 = 11.4 mg/cig. The ceiling heights are assumed.

Occupancy Ceiling Proportion Smoking Total RSP (people/100m3) Height of Smokers, Rate, SR Ventilation (µg/m3) (m) SM (cig/smok Rate Smoking-Permitted er-h) (L/s-adapted Application person) Smoking lounge 70 3 1.0 3.0 33 288 Heavy smoking lounge 70 3 1.0 6.0 58 328 Bar, cocktail lounge 100 3 0.3 1.0 16 59 Heavy smoking bar, 100 3 0.5 2.0 29 cocktail lounge 109 Dining Room 1 70 3 0.2 0.6 13 29 Dining Room 2 70 3 0.5 0.6 16 59 Gambling Casino 1 120 4 0.2 1.5 19 50 Gambling Casino 2 120 4 0.2 1.5 18 53 Conference Room 50 3 0.2 1.1 14 50 Game Arcade 70 2.5 0.2 1.1 19 37 Bowling Alley (seating 70 4 0.2 1.5 21 area) 45 Office 7 2.5 0.2 0.6 13 29

These levels of RSP are well above the 4.4 µg/m3 levels two-thirds of the healthy subjects Junker, et. al6 found considered unacceptable air quality.

3 These levels of RSP are all above the 15 µg/m annual arithmetic mean level of PM2.5 specified by the US EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standard.11 These levels are also well above levels that would be considered to pose an acceptable risk for lung cancer based on federal standards.12

These results are strongly dependent on the assumptions that are made. For example, using an average smoking prevalence of 23%1 (rather than the low 20% assumed in Appendix I) and a smoking rate of 2 cigarettes/hour per smoker2, 7 (rather than the very low rate of 0.6 cigarettes/hour assumed in Appendix I) raises the RSP levels for Dining Room 1 and Office from 29 µg/m3 to 112 µg/m3.

The levels of RSP defined by the procedures in Appendix I can produce immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system that increase the short-term risk of heart attack.

While most attention on secondhand smoke has been devoted to lung cancer, secondhand smoke also increases the risk of heart disease. Some of these changes, in particular effects on blood platelets and vascular endothelial function (which affects the ability of the arteries in the heart to expand and increase blood flow when the heart needs more blood) occur within less than 30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure in realistic environments.13- 15 These changes both increase the immediate risk of a heart attack and do long term damage to the heart and blood vessels.

In addition, short term exposure to RSP in secondhand smoke reduces heart rate variability16 (small random fluctuations in heart rate around the basic rate). While the precise mechanisms have not been elucidated, a reduction in heart rate variability increases the risk of a heart attack. One experiment involved having volunteers sit in the smoking lounge (RSP = 78 µg/m3) for two hours at the Salt Lake City airport. This exposure to May 13, 2003 3 FORM FOR SUBMITTAL OF PROPOSED CHANGE TO ASHRAE STANDARD UNDER CONTINUOUS MAINTENANCE secondhand smoke RSP was associated with a consistent and significant reduction in heart rate variability that was associated with about a 10% increase in risk of a heart attack. No one has yet determined how quickly this effect occurs or how low a concentration of secondhand smoke is required to trigger this effect, but it will clearly occur at some of the levels of RSP present in spaces designed in accordance with the guidelines in Appendix I, even under the assumptions that bias the results to low levels of RSP.

Appendix I is inconsistent with ASHRAE principles and stated Board Policy.

There are at least two relevant Board Policies:

• “The Board of Directors affirms the implied policy that ASHRAE standards shall consider health impacts where appropriate” (100-117-006 & 520-166-013). Adopted by Board of Directors June 9, 2002. • “Change the scope [of Standard 62] to indicate that the standard applies only to non-smoking spaces in buildings.” Adopted by Board of Directors June 27, 2002.

The June 27, 2002 policy was adopted based on the following background statements by the Board Policy Committee for Standards:

1. The title of Standard 62.1 is “Ventilation for Acceptable Air Quality.” If supplemental guidance for spaces where smoking is permitted was included in the standard, such inclusion would be contrary to the title of the standard. There is evidence that acceptable air quality cannot be achieved where smoking is permitted.

The Board Policy Committee also included the background statement:

4. The ETS informative material in the proposed Appendix 62-O could possibly be used in the special publication or handbook suggested above. (Note: Appendix 62-O [Appendix I in the Standard] will be considered by the BOD at the 2002 Annual Meeting. If adopted, the appendix should remain part of standard 62.1 until such time that recommendations by the BPC on Standards regarding 62.1 are approved by the BOD.)

Given that the Board adopted the recommendation of the BPC to change the scope of Standard 62 to indicate that it applies only to nonsmoking spaces on June 27, 2002, it would appear that Appendix I is no longer relevant and should be deleted.

Appendix I is inconsistent with the ASHRAE Code of Ethics.

The Code of Ethics states in part: “Our efforts shall be directed at all times to the enhancement of the public health, safety and welfare.”17 As noted above, spaces designed in accordance with the guidelines in Appendix I can lead to levels of RSP that are not consistent with "public health, safety, and welfare."

Summary

The guidance in Appendix I allows for levels of RSP exposure that violate standards set by cognizant health authorities, are not based on reasonable engineering design principles, can lead to exposure levels that produce immediate and dangerous adverse cardiovascular effects, are inconsistent with stated ASHRAE Board policy and

May 13, 2003 4 FORM FOR SUBMITTAL OF PROPOSED CHANGE TO ASHRAE STANDARD UNDER CONTINUOUS MAINTENANCE the ASHRAE Code of Ethics, and does not even meet its stated goal of providing comfort to a reasonable fraction of the population.

References

1. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevalence of Current Cigarette Smoking Among Adults and Changes in Prevalence of Current and Some Day Smoking --- United States, 1996--2001. MMWR 2003;52(14):303-307. 2. Cain W, Leaderer B, Isseroff R, Berglund L, Huey R, Lipsitt E, et al. Ventilation requirements in buildings -- I. Control of occupancy odor and tobacco smoke odor. Atmospheric Environment 1983;17(6):1183- 1197. 3. RJ Reynolds Document Collection. 1979: Access Date July 3, 2003. URL: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fci39d00. 4. Cain W, DiMarco G. Consulting contract with RJ Reynolds. July 8, 1987: Access Date July 3, 2003. URL: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ejc97c00. 5. DiMarco G, Ward M. Executed agreement with WS Cain and RJ Reynolds. January 23, 1989: Access Date July 3, 2003. URL: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dil34d00. 6. Junker M, Danuser B, Monn C, Koller T. Acute sensory responses of nonsmokers at very low environmental tobacco smoke concentrations in controlled laboratory settings. Environmental Health Perspectives 2001;109:1045-1052. 7. Repace JL, Lowrey AH. Indoor air pollution, tobacco smoke, and public health. Science 1980;208(4443):464-72. 8. Ott W, Langan L, Switzer P. A time series model for cigarette smoking activity patterns: Model validation for carbon monoxide and respirable particles in a chamber and an automobile. J Exposure Anal Environ. Epidemiol 1992;2(Suppl 2):175-200. 9. Klepeis N, Ott W, Switzer P. A multiple-smoker model for predicting indoor air quality in public lounges. Environ. Sci. Technol 1996;30:2813-2820. 10. Ozkayanak H, Xue J, Weker B, Spengler J. The Particle Team (PTEAM) Study: Analysis of the Data. EPA Draft Final Report, Volume III. Boston, MA: Harvard School of Public Health; 1994. Report No.: Prepared under Contract 58-02-4544. 11. US Environmental Protection Agency. National Ambient Air Quality Standards November 15, 2002.(http://www.epa.gov/airs/criteria.html Accessed: June 27 2003 12. Repace JL, Lowrey AH. An enforceable indoor air quality standard for environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace. Risk Anal 1993;13(4):463-75. 13. Glantz SA, Parmley WW. Even a little secondhand smoke is dangerous. Jama 2001;286(4):462-3. 14. Glantz SA, Parmley WW. Passive smoking and heart disease. Mechanisms and risk. Jama 1995;273(13):1047-53. 15. Glantz SA, Parmley WW. Passive smoking and heart disease. Epidemiology, physiology, and biochemistry. Circulation 1991;83(1):1-12. 16. Pope CA, 3rd, Eatough DJ, Gold DR, Pang Y, Nielsen KR, Nath P, et al. Acute exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and heart rate variability. Environ Health Perspect 2001;109(7):711-6. 17. ASHRAE. Code of Ethics.http://xp20.ashrae.org/frame.asp?ABOUT/1about.htm Accessed: July 3 2003

May 13, 2003 5