Email
Password
(Forgot Password?)
President Obama last week announced his intent to nominate David Michaels to become administrator of the Office of Safety and Health Administration, and today The New York Times hails Michaels' selection in an editorial, "A Champion for Workers' Safety." The Times observes that Michaels' nomination is "apt to provoke opposition from some business interests" and offers advice:
They should hold their fire. His emphasis on cultural change and involvement of workers in improving safety could help ease the polarization between business and labor. And his emphasis on sound science could give everyone greater confidence that OSHA will make the right decisions. . . .
In Michaels' view, big corporations invariably follow the tobacco industry's historical approach toward science and public relations.
"Tobacco figured this out, and essentially it's the same model," said David Michaels, who was a federal regulator in the Clinton administration. "If you fight the science, you're able to postpone regulation and victim compensation, as well. As in this case, eventually the science becomes overwhelming. But if you can get five or 10 years of avoiding pollution control or production of chemicals, you've greatly increased your product."
Jump to full article »
Dear Mr. Czehowski:
This is in response to your letter to the OSHA San Francisco Regional Office, asking for clarification of a 1990 letter of interpretation regarding OSHA's asbestos standards. We understand that the State of Nevada has adopted standards identical to those of Federal OSHA and intends to follow the Federal enforcement policy. Your letter was forwarded to OSHA's national office for response . . .
The employer shall ensure that employees do not smoke in work areas where they are occupationally exposed to asbestos because of activities in that work area. (emphasis added)
As we explained in our 1990 letter to Mr. Sledge, the Agency determined that the health risk for smoking employees exposed to asbestos is substantially higher than nonsmoking ones. We explained in the preamble to the rule that "[t]his is an expansion of the present smoking ban, which, as in most OSHA health standards, is confined to regulated areas where exposures are elevated." (55 FR at 3726, February 5, 1990). The smoking ban in the asbestos standards does not specify a level of exposure. However, the exposure must have its source in the workplace. We have explained that this means that an employee who works in areas where there are operations that disturb asbestos, such as asbestos abatement and renovation activities, may be occupationally exposed, regardless of whether that employee disturbs or handles the asbestos.
"The Dormitory living quarters meets current health and safety standards as set forth by the Occupational Safety and Health Manual. Ventilation in these areas has been found to be adequate for smokers and non-smokers." What are these standards? How can a room appr. 15' x 9' with three smokers be guaranteed not to affect a non-smoker in the same room?
This is in response to your inquiry concerning the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations that apply to smoking in dormitories.
OSHA is charged with protecting the safety and health of workers and does not regulate the ventilation of residences. Currently, OSHA has no regulations that apply to smoking, however, OSHA does have a standard which limits employee exposure to carbon monoxide one of the products from the combustion of tobacco. The current OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) for carbon monoxide is 50 parts of carbon monoxide per million parts of air averaged over an 8-hour work day. I have enclosed the "NIOSH/OSHA Occupational Health Guideline for Carbon Monoxide" for your use. This guideline provided information on the health effects associated with carbon monoxide exposure.
Also, you may want to write to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning this matter. EPA is responsible for protecting the health of the general public and may have guidelines that apply to smoking. . . .
I have also enclosed an article entitled "The Problem of Passive Smoking" by James L. Replace of EPA for your use and a bibliography of references on tobacco smoke compiled by the National Capital Area Lung Associations.
This major group includes establishments engaged in manufacturing cigarettes, cigars, smoking and chewing tobacco, snuff, and reconstituted tobacco and in stemming and redrying tobacco. Also included in this major group is the manufacture of non-tobacco cigarettes. The manufacture of insecticides from tobacco by-products is included in Major Group 28.
Industry Group 211: Cigarettes
· 2111 Cigarettes
Industry Group 212: Cigars
· 2121 Cigars
Industry Group 213: Chewing And Smoking Tobacco And Snuff
· 2131 Chewing and Smoking Tobacco and Snuff
Industry Group 214: Tobacco Stemming And Redrying
· 2141 Tobacco Stemming and Redrying
Abstract: The health of American workers may be affected by indoor air pollution in the workplace. After reviewing and analyzing available information, OSHA published a proposed indoor air quality rule on April 5, 1994. . . .
On December 17, 2001, OSHA withdrew its Indoor Air Quality proposal and terminated the rulemaking proceeding (66 FR 64946). In the years since the proposal was issued in 1994 a great many state and local governments and private employers have taken action to curtail smoking in public areas and in workplaces. In addition, the portion of the proposal not related to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) received little attention during the rulemaking proceedings and the record evidence supporting the non-ETS portion of the proposal is sparse. The Agency found that withdrawal of the proposal would allow it to devote its resources to other projects.
Because the organic material in tobacco doesn't burn completely, cigarette smoke contains more than 4,700 chemical compounds. Although OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.
For further information to offer to employers/employees as guidance, you may wish to review a document published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about the health effects from environmental tobacco smoke, A Fact Sheet: Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking. Additional information on indoor air quality in general can be found on the Indoor Air Quality Technical Links page on the OSHA website.
We hope you find this information helpful.
A countywide smoking ban may be on the November ballot if some St. Louis County council members have their way, over the objections of premium cigar store owners, members of the International Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers Association.
"We want to go on record as being against this proposed ban and any legislated smoking ban, for that matter. Government should stay out of private business decisions like this. If a business owner decides to prevent smoking on the premises, that's fine. It's his individual right to do so. If government gets involved, pretty soon you'll have bureaucrats running whole industries like banking and finance, automobile, energy and healthcare," said Chris McCalla, legislative director of the IPCPR.
St. Louis County council members are expected to continue discussing the issue at their meeting on Tuesday, July 28. Council member Barbara Fraser has proposed putting the issue to a referendum. McCalla makes the point that minorities have rights and smokers are a minority.
"The only thing a smoking ban would do is lead the way in increased unemployment, failed businesses and deprivation of individual rights," said McCalla.
McCalla says anti-smoking forces often use misinformation and biased research based on junk science provided by organizations that are rarely challenged regarding the source, quality and truth of that research.
"For example, they say there are no safe levels for secondhand smoke. Not true. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is the federal agency charged with maintaining a healthy and safe work environment. OSHA has set safe levels for secondhand smoke that are exponentially higher than the air quality found in average restaurants and bars," he said.
A dealer who spent two decades at Caesars Palace has sued the Strip resort and parent company Harrah's Entertainment in federal court claiming that exposure to secondhand smoke forced her to quit her casino job.
In a lawsuit that attorneys are seeking to have certified as a class action case, former blackjack dealer Tomo Stephens claimed Caesars Palace isn't doing enough to protect its workers from the dangers of secondhand smoke.
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas, contends Caesars Palace, since being acquired by Harrah's in 2005, has removed nonsmoking gaming areas from the casino floor, forbids employees from designating certain gaming tables as smoke-free and encourages smoking among its customers.
"The point of this lawsuit is not to ban smoking in casinos," said Jay Edelson, a Chicago-based attorney who filed the action. "The real goal is to change what they're doing. At least offer areas that are nonsmoking where employees can circle in and out. We are not trying to stop smokers from gambling."ional Institute of Occupational Safety and Health that assessed the levels of second-hand smoke in three casinos.
The study found that chemicals associated with second-hand smoke exist both on casino floors and in the bloodstreams of casino employees.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (OSH), an arm of the Centers for Disease Control, has asked casinos to ban smoking to protect their workers.
The action was prompted by a new study showing significant levels of a tobacco-specific carcinogenic toxin in the urine of workers in three Nevada casinos, a study prompted by the request of Nevada casino workers for health evaluations of their workplaces.
At least one of those employees lost her job after making her request.
The study, known in bureaucratic parlance as a health hazard evaluation (HHE), was conducted among 124 workers in the Bally's, Paris and Caesars Palace casinos in Las Vegas. (The three casinos are all Harrah's properties.) . . .
Among findings:
"We found ETS components in the air. These components include nicotine, 4-vinyl pyridine, respirable dust, solanesol, benzene, toluene, p-dichloromethane, naphthalene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde."
"We found increased urinary levels of one ETS component during the work shift. This finding shows that these components were absorbed in [non-poker] casino dealers' bodies."
There were also findings favorable to the casinos' stance of supporting smoking over worker safety, but the presence of the toxins led to OSH asking the casinos to end smoking.
Terrie Price, a dealer at Caesars Palace for 25 years, was fired in 2005. She has filed a lawsuit against the company.
During the 25 years she worked as a Caesars Palace dealer, Terrie Price was one of a few vocal anti-smoking dissenters among thousands of largely silent casino workers. Price believes her efforts to force her employer to address secondhand smoke, even as a growing body of scientific research chronicled its dangers, cost her that job.
The release last week of the first federal study detailing the effects of secondhand smoke on Las Vegas casino employees — a study Price requested — vindicated those efforts, Price said.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health tracked more than 100 dealers at Bally’s, Paris Las Vegas and Caesars Palace during on-site visits in 2005 and 2006. Researchers found the dealers were exposed to airborne chemicals associated with secondhand smoke during their shifts, had increased levels of tobacco-specific carcinogens in their urine after their shifts, and reported a host of respiratory problems potentially triggered by workplace smoke.
“We’ve been waiting a long time for this,” said Price, 53.
Not only is it legal to enforce policies that promote a smoke-free work environment. Allowing smoking at work, if the effects are severe enough to threaten employee health, might constitute a violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). Although there is no OSHA regulation prohibiting workplace smoking per se, employers could be liable for the negative effects of workplace smoking under the so-called "General Duty Clause" of the law, which states that each employer "shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees." More specifically, OSHA requires that employers provide employees with an acceptable level of indoor air quality, and the agency's written guidance states that employers must keep air contaminants within "permissible exposure limits." In addition, several states and localities have passed laws banning smoking, to varying degrees, in the workplace.
Since when has the city government taken over for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration? If it is so unsafe for anyone to patronize or work at a place where smoking occurs, wouldn't it be more unsafe at home? Will the city ban that next? What about cars?
Let OSHA do its job, and let the people vote for nonsmoking establishments with their dollars.
Recent updates to public information in Colorado Department of Revenue public reports reveal the trend for diminishing rates of increase in bar trade revenues continues, while increases in restaurant sector sales accelerate. "The most recent comparative sales data for the first quarter of 2007 confirms a trend that we first identified early this summer," said Allen Campbell, Senior Vice President of the Coalition for Equal Rights, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) bar and tavern trade group headquartered in Colorado Springs.
Campbell said the well-established changes in competitive hospitality trade sector revenues are important in light of OSHA criteria for regulatory economic impact. OSHA generally considers a regulatory action to be not economically feasible if it would cause a decrease in related industry or sector revenue of one percent or cause a decline in profits in excess of ten percent. OSHA also usually considers a regulatory action not economically feasible if the action would cause a change in the competitive structure of an industry.
"The Colorado smoking ban violates all three OSHA economic feasibility criteria," Campbell said.
This letter is in response to the editorial, "Tobacco lobby thwarts OSHA crackdown," Sunday, July 15, 2007, by Steve and Alice Schneider.
Steve and Alice Schneider repeat the lie that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. This violates a basic principle of toxicology that dose makes the poison. . . .
We don't know how much secondhand smoke a nonsmoker inhales as she works near smokers; it may be less than one cigarette a day. Perhaps that worker should smoke a few just as a preventive measure, if secondhand smoke is as dangerous as proponents of smoking bans say.
If regulatory agencies such as the Office of the Surgeon General are going to issue such irresponsible reports, we should be glad that legislators provide oversight; that is what a potential cutoff of funding for an OSHA regulation by a few regulators is. And of course anti-smoking groups will sue for eliminating workplace smoking. Rather than work through the political process and through good science, they instead ask an unelected judge to do their dirty work for them.
Barbara Banaian's July 6 column "Smoking bans are about policy, not about facts" has, at its premise, the notion that because the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration has not set a standard on exposure to secondhand smoke, that the claims surrounding its dangers must somehow be exaggerated.
Not surprisingly, the tobacco industry and its allies have long made this argument. . . .
The truth of the matter, which Banaian unfortunately overlooked, is that OSHA has tried to regulate exposure to secondhand smoke but the tobacco lobby has repeatedly thwarted those efforts.
OSHA attempted to implement such standards during the Clinton administration but was stopped when tobacco industry lobbyists convinced some members of Congress to strip funding for the federal agency if they went forward with the proposal. . . .
Despite claims to the contrary, secondhand smoke is indeed extremely dangerous. That's why last year, after reviewing existing credible studies, the U.S. Surgeon General came to the conclusion that there are no safe levels of exposure to secondhand smoke and that only policy that completely prevent that exposure are effective in protecting public health.
Thankfully, the Minnesota Legislature and Gov. Tim Pawlenty recognized that in the passage and signing of a law that will make nearly all Minnesota workplaces smoke-free starting on Oct. 1.