OSHA: Proposed Standard For Indoor Air Quality: ETS Hearings, January 9, 1995
OSHA: Proposed Standard For Indoor Air Quality: ETS Hearings, January 9, 1995
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED STANDARD FOR INDOOR AIR QUALITY
Monday, January 9, 1995
Department of Labor
Washington, D.C.
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m.
BEFORE: HONORABLE JOHN VITTONE
Administrative Law Judge
AGENDA
PAGE
National Center for Environmental Health Strategies
Mary Lamielle 10225
Questions:
Ms. Kaplan 10237
Mr. Jawer 10256
Mr. Rupp 10268
National Realty Committee
Edwin N. Sidman 10312
Roger Platt
E. Donald Elliott
Questions:
Ms. Kaplan 10326
Ms. Janes 10369
Mr. Rupp 10375
Printing Industries of America
Larry Bennett 10407
Questions:
Ms. Kaplan 10412
Ms. Janes 10415
Senator Michael Dmitrich 10416
Questions:
Ms. Kaplan 10422
Ms. Janes 10424
Mr. McNeely 10425
Mr. Rupp 10429
Mr. Smith 10433
Greg Shank 10435
Questions:
Ms. Kaplan 10441
Mr. McNeely 10446
Mr. Kodsi 10448
Ravenia Court Travel
Joan Rutger 10449
Questions:
Ms. Kaplan 10454
Ms. Janes 10456
Mr. Rupp 10457
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT NO. IDENTIFIED RECEIVED
202 10236 10236
203 10236 10236
204 10312 10312
205 10407 10407
206 10435 10435
P R O C E E D I N G S
9:48 a.m.
JUDGE VITTONE: We're on the record.
Ma'am, would you state your full name for the record and the name of the organization you're representing today?
MS. LAMIELLE: Mary Lamielle, National Center for Environmental Health Strategies.
JUDGE VITTONE: And if you have a presentation, you can make it now.
MS. LAMIELLE: I'm going to read my statement.
JUDGE VITTONE: That's fine.
MS. LAMIELLE: Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony in response to the indoor air quality notice of proposed rulemaking issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration dated April 5, 1994.
My name is Mary Lamielle. I am president of the National Center for Environmental Health Strategies. The Center is a national non-profit, tax-exempt organization fostering the development of creative solutions to environmental health problems.
Founded in 1986, the Center has become the preeminent source of public information, educational materials, technical support and input on research and to government on environmental illnesses, including sick building syndrome and chemical sensitivities and the effects of low level chemical exposures.
We publish "The Delicate Balance Newsletter," which addresses indoor pollution, chemical sensitivities and related environmental health problems.
In many ways, we have been the pathfinders in this area initiating the New Jersey study of chemical sensitivity, testifying before Congress on the indoor air quality act on three occasions, security HUD recognition of chemical sensitivity as a physical disability and ensuring that guidelines under the Americans with Disabilities Act address this issue.
I also worked to secure the first congressional funding for research on chemical sensitivities. I have participated in numerous public and private review panels on indoor air issues, serviced on the EPA lawn care pesticide advisory committee, and I am a member of the President's Committee on Employing People with Disabilities.
The Center receives hundreds of calls and requests for information each week. The majority of these contacts come from people who are mildly to severely affected by environmental exposures at work and at home. This population includes people with allergies, asthma, chemical sensitivities and related environmental disabilities.
Indoor pollution issues are intimately interrelated with chemical sensitivities. While not every individual who becomes ill is made so by indoor exposures, once ill all sensitive individuals experience mild to debilitating symptoms triggered by indoor contaminants. These triggering exposures include pesticides, solvents, deodorizers, disinfectants, air fresheners and the balance of indoor air contaminants referenced in the proposed rulemaking.
We have tracked and assisted significant numbers of individuals sick from workplace exposures. We believe that multiple chemical sensitivity, that is, people who become chronically ill and disabled, may be a preventable disability. Employers must act to remove severely affected individuals from exposures causing debilitating symptoms and to minimize triggering exposures through optimum ventilation, careful product selection, adoption of policies such as integrated pest management and control contaminants during remodeling and renovation.
We have publicized recommendations to create an accessible indoor environment. Many sensitive individuals can be accommodated with modest modifications to the work environment or the work station yet great numbers of those sick from workplace exposures find themselves harassed and discriminated against.
Many become increasingly disabled or may be fired by employers who do not wish to deal with the ramifications of this disability.
We are impressed with the proposed rules and believe that they will advance indoor air quality. We believe that the needs of susceptible and sensitive populations can be addressed by expanding the scope of the proposed rules by specifically including these populations and their needs.
Those with environmental disabilities are afforded some protections through the Americans with Disabilities Act. However, these protections are limited, apply on a case-by-case basis after the fact, after the disability and discrimination have occurred. By increasing access and understanding and by facilitating accommodations for those affected by workplace exposures through the recommendations that we have made, OSHA will help those with environmental disabilities, help prevent future disabilities and help keep healthy people healthy.
We enthusiastically support the smoking prohibition. We would prefer a complete smoking ban rather than providing designated smoking rooms. Care will need to be taken in identifying outdoor areas suitable for smoking. Smoking at the entrances to buildings forces brief but intense exposures outside and inside the entry. In some situations such as shopping malls, patrons may also be forced to walk the gauntlet of individuals who are smoking.
Furthermore, smoking must be prohibited in outdoor areas which are in the vicinity of fresh air intakes and operable windows.
We support the overall approach and content of the balance of the indoor air quality proposal. However, it is important that OSHA integrate recommendations that address susceptible and sensitive populations into the proposed rules. Our primary recommendations are summarized by topic area.
Regarding indoor air quality compliance program and implementation, we support the development of a written compliance program to ensure healthier indoor air quality. Ideally, the person in charge of the compliance program would be educated or trained in these public health issues and the plan would include input from or review by sensitive individuals or their representatives.
We endorse all the indoor air quality recommendations cited in the rulemaking in this section. We are pleased to see recommendations for minimum ventilation for all shifts, ventilation to exhaust, maintenance and housekeeping products. You should add a requirement for ventilation and exhaust systems to be turned on 24 hours a day or at least some period of time before and after work hours to be certain that employees enter and leave the work space with optimum indoor air quality.
The implementation plan must require action and response to employee health complaints. This is a critical element which I will address shortly.
With regard to HVAC systems and building ventilation, there should be a prohibition of the introduction of chemicals into the HVAC system except as may be required in an emergency situation at which time complete information would be provided to building occupants before any such action is taken.
The rule should discourage or prohibit the introduction of deodorizers, disinfectants, perfumes, scents and other aromas. We have received many reports from building occupants who believe they are sick from the use of such chemicals in this manner.
The rule should permit or encourage the use of windows for ventilation purposes for the health and safety of building occupants and to cleanse indoor pollutants more rapidly than the HVAC system can, except in instances of highly polluted outdoor air.
It is important to check the location of fresh air intakes to make sure that they are not introducing additional contaminants into the work environment. We are aware of a number of instances during which lawn care pesticides were introduced into the building's ventilation system through the fresh air intakes.
With regard to recordkeeping, I believe that accurate and comprehensive recordkeeping could be one of the most critical elements in the proposed indoor air rules because it could provide for timely identification and resolution of building air quality problems.
Recordkeeping cannot, however, be limited to building-related illnesses only. To do so would mean that the majority of indoor complaints would go undocumented and perhaps unaddressed. The numbers of people sick from and injured by workplace exposures is significant and growing. Those who may be in a sick building or who may be experiencing symptoms from workplace exposures have no vehicle for reporting their health problems. If these individuals do try to express concerns to co-workers and management, the complaints are often ignored. Many individuals find that they are ostracized and harassed in such circumstances or that they become chronically ill and disabled before they can be appropriately accommodated.
The recordkeeper must cite the reports of all those affected by poor indoor air quality to be able to adequately monitor each situation.
Recordkeeping that identifies all health related indoor air complaints may be particularly important in offices and structures with multiple occupancy where the air quality in separate spaces may be unknown to the persons in charge of indoor air compliance.
The recordkeeper should be knowledgeable about and trained in public health issues with particular emphasis on susceptible populations.
The proposed rule may also need additional clarification regarding the recording of employee complaints.
Who will record the complaint?
Will someone track the types of complaints?
Who will take action to remediate the situation?
Will those who report health complaints be guaranteed anonymity to avoid stigma and retaliation?
Will there be an enforcement mechanism?
And the next topic is signage. Signage is an efficient and inexpensive way to protect employees and the public. Not only should permanent signs be posted to designated smoking areas as proposed but they should be used to alert building occupants and the public to other activities which may impact on accessibility by compromising building air quality.
Signs should be posted for pesticide applications, remodeling activities, cleaning activities such as floor stripping and waxing and carpet shampooing and cleaning.
Restroom cleaning schedules should also be posted. Signs could also be used to designate fragrance-free work and lunch break areas for employees with allergies, asthma and chemical sensitivities.
The next topic, indoor contaminants. The proposed rulemaking suggests that an effective and efficient HVAC system will minimize the impact of other pollution sources. From the reports that we receive, I don't think this is true of all workplaces. Complaints received at our Center identify problematic products which should be restricted or eliminated in the indoor environment. Your recommendation should also call for less toxic alternatives such as IPM policies.
Government research on specific indoor air exposures has not been used to the benefit of the public. EPA's team study found that the terpene alpha-pinene, a mutagen, an paradichlorobenzene, the active pesticide in moth flakes and in air fresheners, are found in indoor environments at 10 times the level found outdoors.
Pine scented products and most particularly air fresheners can be debilitating exposures for those sick from indoor pollutants and significant indoor contaminants, according to team study project director Lance Wallace.
Research is available on other indoor exposures that demand our attention and your guidance or regulation.
Air quality during renovation and remodeling. Remodeling should not be done while buildings are occupied. Significant numbers of people who have become hypersensitive to chemicals from workplace exposures have become sick during remodeling and renovation activities. Some employees describe remodeling situations during which affected individuals continued to work during the use of toxic chemicals, even in instances when workers doing the renovations wore respirators.
Any remodeling plan must specifically address susceptible populations. Education must be provided for workers on this disability. Input from hypersensitive individuals or their representatives should be required. This should include provisions for alternate work space during the project for a sufficient time to allow for reentry without symptoms.
While we approve of prenotification, 24 hours may not be sufficient for those who must make alternate plans. Efforts should be made to remodel when the building is minimally occupied. This is particularly relevant when renovations are done in schools, hospitals, day care centers, nursing homes.
While preparing this statement, I was reminded of the concerns of two high school students who are volunteers at the center. One student asked if I could help her get smoking out of her high school building. Smoking is prohibited in all schools in New Jersey which is where we're located. She expressed her physical discomfort while being in the vicinity of tobacco smoke and her concern for her own and her classmates' health. She noted that students freely smoked in bathrooms and other areas of the school without significant faculty or administration action.
The second student was eager to share her reasons for volunteering. When I had visited her class to discuss our center and our agenda, I had told the class about my sensitivities to environmental exposures. She felt relieved hear a validation of her own experience. She had had a history of symptoms from some perfumes and cleaning products, among other items. She related a recent experience in which window cleaning product was being used in a classroom while she was taking a chemistry test. She experienced a severe headache and felt she could not concentrate. She asked the teacher proctoring the test to stop using the product. When she shared her experience with her chemistry teacher, he dismissed her complaint.
Both of these students and all of our children deserve classrooms and ultimately work spaces free from indoor pollutants. The longer we ignore these issues and dismiss these health complaints, the more overwhelming these problems will become. The OSHA proposals before us are a significant step forward in addressing this complex area.
JUDGE VITTONE: Thank you very much.
I have Ms. Lamielle's testimony in printed form. I also have something called "The Delicate Balance"?
MS. LAMIELLE: Yes. "The Delicate Balance" is a newsletter that we do. That issue has a number of articles relating to workplace exposures and access and disability issues. And the other pieces that my testimony had referenced information on access to work environments and such and that's included in the newsletter but also I forgot to attach the other page that should have been part of your testimony so I'll be sending that in separately.
JUDGE VITTONE: Okay. The printed testimony will be identified as Exhibit 202.
(The document referred to was marked for identification as Exhibit 202 and was received in evidence.)
JUDGE VITTONE: And the newsletter called "The Delicate Balance," Volume 5, Nos. 3 and 4, Fall and Winter 1993-'94, will be 203.
(The document referred to was marked for identification as Exhibit 203. and was received in evidence.)
JUDGE VITTONE: Ms. Kaplan, do you have any questions?
MS. KAPLAN: Yes.
Ms. Lamielle, could you just tell us a little bit more about the National Center for Environmental Health Strategies? How many members do you have?
MS. LAMIELLE: Right now, we actually count our membership through our distribution of our newsletter, which is in excess of 4000. And the other piece, I guess, is that we take-- we've probably taken in over the course since 1986 between about 12,000 and 15,000 calls from people who are chemically sensitive.
MS. KAPLAN: How do you respond to the calls? I take it you provide information?
MS. LAMIELLE: Well, we have free information packages that give information, basic information on chemical sensitivity and then can be modified depending on the person's call. One thing that I can say right now, I've seen a change in the complexion of the calls that we've received and the information requested and received. Over the last several years, there have just been more and more people calling regarding workplace exposures and that's one of the several significant things we've seen with people who are alerted to the fact that, gee, I could be sensitive to what's happening here in terms of remodeling experiences or realizing that perhaps they have other options for getting accommodated or having their health issues addressed.
The flip side of that is in many of these instances even though we try very hard to work with the person affected and employers and such, sometimes we're successful in getting people accommodated or getting their needs met but in many other instances people are just faced with real, I guess, ignorance or lack of understanding toward this problem and an unwillingness to cooperate, to accommodate people.
MS. KAPLAN: So some of your members are people with diagnosed chemical sensitivities and some of them are just experiencing problems in the workplace or in other places with various chemicals?
MS. LAMIELLE: I would say that the majority of people are sensitive to chemicals but it's a range from people who are mildly affected to people who are severely affected and disabled.
MS. KAPLAN: And what was the impetus for the formation of the organization?
MS. LAMIELLE: I myself became sensitive to chemicals, very sick, in 1979 following multiple exposures.
MS. KAPLAN: You talk about information that your organization has collected. Do you have any IAQ studies performed by independent consultants?
MS. LAMIELLE: No. That's not the nature of it. We're involved in perhaps seeing that those things happen or input into them but that's not the type of thing that we are doing at this time. We're much more involved, I guess, in tracking what's happening and also in promoting or participating in research in this area.
MS. KAPLAN: You mentioned getting calls from people who have remodeling going on in their workplaces. How often is remodeling a factor in these problems?
MS. LAMIELLE: I think it's-- if you're not already sensitive, I think that that's one of the significant exposures that causes people to develop multiple chemical sensitivity. So there's frequent calls in that sort of larger complex of calls that we get.
MS. KAPLAN: And what materials are causing these exposures? Are they paint? Are they new materials? Fabrics?
MS. LAMIELLE: Frequently I guess they're multiple exposures but I would say certainly new carpet installation with or without adhesives, painting, fresh paint. Some significant ones having to do with using solvents to remove floor tiles, like if you want to replace floor tiles or replace it with carpeting.
We've had, I guess, at least two instances that we were aware of where schools, the concrete in the school or the soil around the building was apparently contaminated by the heavy use of solvents to remove these floor tiles to begin with.
We also get a lot of calls from people like working perhaps like in laboratories where they are doing some types of medical testing and everything from the chemicals that are being used in those tests to the fact that maybe a number of people are sick and they find out that the fresh air intake has been broken for six months, things of that nature.
So we sort of do the whole spectrum, not just office workers but people in other occupations where they would be exposed either through activities that take place or other kinds of chemicals introduced into the environment.
MS. KAPLAN: And in your experience what sorts of protections are being provided for these employees to minimize exposures during renovation?
MS. LAMIELLE: In many of the instances, I don't think there's much protection or information and that's the problem. So healthy people-- right now, we have some factors that could say-- if we shared them with you, and I can go through them in a moment, it might say you're more likely than someone else to develop a more severe case of chemical sensitivity, developing multiple chemical sensitivity. So that people who have a history of allergic rhinitis or food sensitivities or reactions to over-the-counter or prescription medications, there are a few factors like that that seem to appear in people who have developed multiple chemical sensitivity.
And so with that kind of information and knowing the types of exposures that may cause this disability, it seems to me that the intelligent employer and the Federal Government would play a role in coming in and defining these are the exposures that are going to take place, this is what we know about these risks or hazards, but people who may be vulnerable populations and not just people who might become chemically sensitive but other susceptible populations need to, I think, have that full information to be able to assess or to know when their health is perhaps deteriorating from the remodeling and to be able to take immediate action.
Quite frequently what happens is we'll get a call from somebody the first week that carpet installation is taking place and the person will be saying that I'm experiencing numbness around my face and a really severe headache and somehow by placing a number of calls I found out about your organization, I want to know what to do.
Well, my advice, my honest advice, to that person is to get out of that space, to make sure that you don't become chronically ill, disabled, ending up with Social Security and all these other factors.
But that reasonable recommendation with regard to that person's situation is not a rational one because that person needs to work and so forth and so on and employers aren't equipped in understanding this disability to know that rather than sort of forcing that person to disability they should take action early on to maybe move that person to another area of the building, allow that person to work at home for some period of time, somehow act to prevent disability rather than allowing the person to continue to get sicker and sicker over a period of weeks in that work space.
MS. KAPLAN: You mentioned cigarette smoke coming in through windows or fresh air intakes. Have you received complaints from people having a problem with that?
MS. LAMIELLE: Yes, we have received that. And personally I have had that experience myself but, yes, we have received complaints about that.
MS. KAPLAN: And how large of an area at a building entrance do you think should be designated smoke-free?
MS. LAMIELLE: My guess would be at least 25 feet or so, maybe a little bit more than. I'm trying to sort of assess-- but, you know, in that type of situation, for example, I've faced having to go to the hospital emergency room and literally walked through maybe 15 different medical people in front of the emergency room smoking as you're trying to go in with respiratory problems and this is just not exactly an ideal situation. My guess would be at least 25 feet but far enough away so that you don't have to walk through a significant amount of tobacco but also so that it doesn't pass into the building through the entryway.
MS. KAPLAN: And do you get many complaints from people having adverse reactions to secondhand smoke?
MS. LAMIELLE: Yes. Yes. I would say that in the area that we deal with, I would say 99 percent of the people that we deal with are very-- get very sick from tobacco smoke but to some degree it becomes a lesser issue because many of those folks are, for example, some of them aren't working because they've become so sick so it's a significant issue but it might not be as pressing of an issue as the fact that, for example, that they can't find clothing that they can wear or whatever. So it's a major access issue but it may not be a significant issue if you're somehow sick and in your own home and smoking doesn't occur there. So that's why in terms of the-- but, yes, it's a major, major issue.
MS. KAPLAN: You also mentioned problems with chemicals being introduced into HVAC systems.
MS. LAMIELLE: Yes. Significant problems.
MS. KAPLAN: This would be biocides, air freshener type chemicals?
MS. LAMIELLE: Yes. And it's not just-- you also have the issue of just air fresheners themselves being placed in buildings and automatically dispensing scent or other types of chemicals. For example, in bathrooms or whatever. I addressed the HVAC system because that's what was addressed in your comments but I think, again, that that's one of the significant areas where over the last several years and certainly in the last year that there is just more and more instances where businesses, stores, hotels, office buildings are being urged to introduce chemicals to stimulate people's-- you know, to work, productivity, or make them want to stay in buildings, all that sort of aroma/perfume types of things. And many of those chemicals are just significant-- there are significant access and health problems for sensitive populations. So that would be people who are mildly to severely affected.
And then meanwhile, we've had instances where we've been told that like a hospital cafeteria where their HVAC system regularly had dispensed disinfectants and deodorizers through the system in the cafeteria and the person had guessed maybe this was being done because of AIDS and other bacteria and such and I guess I just wonder about the efficacy of such a practice and I think that it's probably-- my sense is that it's more harmful to people than it is doing something that's beneficial for the building in a cafeteria type of situation. But those are, again, serious exposures. And you can't get away from them. There is no way to avoid them when they're present in the building.
MS. KAPLAN: Well, what sort of reactions do people have to these chemicals?
MS. LAMIELLE: Well, I would say, for example, air fresheners, they create very debilitating symptoms for people who are chemically sensitive and severely, I would say primarily neurological symptoms. So as far as just cognitive problems and central nervous system types of symptoms.
MS. KAPLAN: The National Air Duct Cleaners has guidelines on this topic and also most likely a reputable duct cleaner will only use chemicals approved by the EPA. It sounds like you're saying these either aren't being followed or they're not sufficient?
MS. LAMIELLE: Well, I guess I'm going to separate into two issues. One is the issue of businesses wanting to introduce fragrances and aromas and perfumes into buildings through the HVAC system. Those are serious in terms of the symptoms that people who are sensitive experience from them. I think frequently those are adding more indoor pollutants, they're adding more indoor contaminants, rather than addressing it or making air less contaminated.
On the separate issue of disinfectants and such, that there might be instances where because of a very significant known problem you may have to introduce a biocide into the building, I have got to say that I am reluctant in saying that, well, just because something is on the market and registered with the EPA that it is a safe product for people to be exposed to. Clearly in the area of pesticides, a pesticide called Dursban or chloroparathos is registered by EPA and I can tell you that's the number one pesticide that people who are becoming chemically sensitive who got that way from pesticides are getting sick from.
So I think that there is a clear exposure problem with biocides and that they should be used with great caution, that they should be used only when people who are in that space or going to use that space are alerted to the fact that they're being used. And, again, I think only in emergency situations, not as a general rule.
MS. KAPLAN: You also mentioned reports of lawn care pesticides being pulled into HVAC systems. Were any of these incidents investigated?
MS. LAMIELLE: Yes. There was one in Washington Township, New Jersey where actually in that instance a maintenance person used a week killer, used an herbicide, around the perimeter of a junior high school building. It actually turned out to be an herbicide that was no longer approved for use, they just happened to have it stored there. When it was used, it was pulled into the ventilation system, into the classrooms, and then it got picked up and it was circulated through the entire building. The incident happened, my rough guess would be maybe four or five years ago and at that time it happened in May. They ended up having to evacuate the building. Some people-- I think it was like 20 or so perhaps went to the hospital. And ultimately the building was closed down to the end of the school year because of people initially getting very sick from the application and then being uncertain as far as the levels of chemicals that might remain in that building.
We've had similar instances also in an insurance company in South Jersey where pesticides were applied to the perimeter of the building and pulled into the building and the building being evacuated and people ending up at the hospital.
MS. KAPLAN: So would you say that problems result from pesticides being misapplied or from the location of the fresh air intakes?
MS. LAMIELLE: Yes. Well, first off, I don't like the idea of pesticides being applied around buildings to begin with but that's not an issue at hand today. But the thing is that I can't see how you can apply toxic chemicals in the vicinity of buildings without to some