OSHA has been sending out the same form letter for 14 years. I've attached it below, in its impersonal boilerplate form, from the U.S. Dept. of Labor's list of Standard Interpretations. The fact is, OSHA does not regulate environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), only industrial exposure levels for certain of its components, and that has been increasingly regarded as inadequate as continuing studies reveal the true level of potential health risk from environmental tobacco smoke. http://ash.org/pr/951104.html http://www.peo7.com/htmFiles/OSHA340.htm http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/3_9.htm http://www.nycclash.com/PELs.html http://www.nycclash.com/OSHAaction.html http://www.meds.com/lung/smoking/environmental.html http://epw.senate.gov/105th/stovall.htm http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/5120.html
OSHA itself has sought to correct this regulatory oversight for the last ten years. [Occupational Safety and Health Administration (1994). �Notice of proposed rulemaking; notice of informal public hearing (29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1926, and 1928).� Federal Register 59: 15968-16039.] but its efforts have been thwarted by. . . guess who? http://ash.org/pr/951104.html http://www.apha.org/legislative/policy/policysearch/index.cfm?fuseaction=vie w&id=85 http://www.nycosh.org/linktopics/indoorair.html _________________________________________ http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_id=19955&p_table=INT ERPRETATIONS "March 30, 1990 [Name Withheld] Dear [Name Withheld]: Thank you for your letter of February 7, to the U.S. Department of Labor in which you inquired about workplace standards establishing what concentration of tobacco smoke is "too much." The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is the agency charged with assuring worker safety and health; therefore, your inquiry was referred to OSHA for a response. Because the organic material in tobacco doesn't burn completely, cigarette smoke contains more than 4,700 chemical compounds. Currently, OSHA has no regulation which specifically addresses tobacco smoke as a whole because it is such a complex mixture. OSHA does, however, have standards which limit employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. Some of OSHA's permissible exposure limits (PELs) and short term exposure limits (STELs) for major components of tobacco smoke are listed below. OSHA's PEL's are 8-hour time weighted averages of the contaminant concentration in air while STELs are averaged over a 15-minute time period. Concentrations are measured in volumetric parts of contaminant per million parts of air (ppm) or by weight of contaminant per volume of air (mg/m3). Contaminant PEL STEL Carbon Monoxide 35 ppm 200 ppm Nicotine 0.5 mg/m3 Sulfur Dioxide 2 ppm 5 ppm Ammonia 35 ppm Nitric Oxide 25 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide 1 ppm Vinyl Chloride 1 ppm 5 ppm Hydrogen Cyanide 4.7 ppm Formaldehyde 1 ppm 2 ppm Benzene 1 ppm 5 ppm Arsenic 0.1 mg/m3 If the PEL or STEL for any of these air contaminants is exceeded, corrective action must be taken by the employer to reduce employee exposure to the contaminant. It is rare, however, that an overexposure occurs simply as a result of indoor air contaminants generated solely by smoking of cigarettes." > [Original Message] > From: Phil Fuehrer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 7/29/04 11:28:36 AM > Subject: [StPaul] From OSHA > > I would think that OSHA could help St. Paul out as we > discuss bans. A response letter from OSHA to an > inquiry on cigarette smoke affecting workers - to > paraphrase - rarely are workers exposed to smoke > levels that exceed OSHA standards. - Phil Fuehrer, > Highwood Hills. > ------------------------------- > April 7, 1998 > Mr. Leroy J. Pletten > 8401 18 Mile Road > Apartment #29 > Sterling Heights, MI 48313 > > Dear Mr. Pletten: > > This is in response to your letter of February 28, to > President Clinton, concerning application of the > Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) > air contaminants standard, 29 CFR 1910.1000, to > regulate worker exposure to tobacco smoke. > > OSHA does attempt to regulate worker exposure to > tobacco smoke by applying 29 CFR 1910.1000. However, > we rarely find that worker exposures exceed the > permissible exposure limit (PEL) for carbon monoxide > or any other pertinent PEL in the standard. > > Thank you for relating your suggestion for protecting > workers from exposure to tobacco smoke. > > Sincerely, > > John B. Miles, Jr. > Director > Directorate of Compliance Programs > > > --- Guy Western <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Looks like it's time to remind everyone that the > > smoking ban was introduced > > to protect the health of bar and restaurant workers > > who don't have the > > liberty of choosing to work exclusively in the no > > smoking section or > > limiting the time of their exposure to less than an > > hour. > > > > I understand the frustration of those who are > > anxious to make every issue > > fit the free market bumper sticker that declares no > > government is necessary > > in the free market utopia where the free market > > governs itself > > satisfactorily in all matters. For all the > > glittering generalities about > > the free market in America, the labor market here is > > decidedly not free. > > > > There are many areas, such as air & water quality, > > product safety, > > engineering quality, food and drug purity, that just > > don't reduce > > themselves to simplistic notions of economic > > anarchy. There are issues > > that can't be reduced to an accounting line in the > > quarterly statement and > > this is one of them. Consumer choice is not > > adequate as a final arbiter of > > employee health. > > > > I don't know how compelling a boycott would be to > > patrons who are given the > > choice between immediate starvation and a half hour > > of exposure before they > > return to their own smoke-free-by-law workplaces. I > > do know, however, that > > the time and manner by which workers may boycott in > > their own interest is > > among the most highly regulated, adjudicated and > > carefully policed > > acitivities there is in America. > > > > And so I say, "boycott, schmoycott". > > > > Guy Western > > the West Side > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: John Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: Mike Fratto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Date: 7/29/04 8:04:17 AM > > > Subject: Re: [StPaul] The Power of Boycott > > > > > > > Ah! John, a great suggestion. > > > > > > I agree, a great suggestion. I still say business > > will accomodate the > > > anti-smokers when they see the money flow. this > > could be a demonstration > > of > > > that. > > > > > > > The fact that a non-smoker will sit in the > > smoking section tells me > > > > that attempting to have an effective boycott > > will not work because > > > > there are those who would still use the > > establishment. > > > > > > > > Thus those who are adamant about non-smoking > > will boycott the > > > > establishment. But I would bet that most people > > would not. > > > > > > > > > > This tells me that if the above it true, either > > people are impatient > > enough > > > that they would endanger their health (given you > > believe that 2nd hand > > smoke is > > > dangerous) in order not to have to wait another 20 > > minutes. it could > > mean that > > > people don't believe that the danger is that real. > > > > > > > > > john harris > > > webber-camden in soon to be smoke free mpls > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail > > SpamGuard. > > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > > > _____________________________________________ > > > To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion > > > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > _____________________________________________ > > > NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your > > password - visit: > > > http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul > > > > > > Archive Address: > > > http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/ > > > > > > _____________________________________________ > > To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion > > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _____________________________________________ > > NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your > > password - visit: > > http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul > > > > Archive Address: > > http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/ > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > _____________________________________________ > To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _____________________________________________ > NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: > http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul > > Archive Address: > http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/ _____________________________________________ To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
