Global Environmental Study - Smoking Lounge Evaluations 9-16-2006

8/14/2019 Global Environmental Study - Smoking Lounge Evaluations 9-16-2006

1/8

6614 Clayton Road #30210- 17-06Mr. Gerard Slay,Deputy DirectorLambert St. Louis lnternational AirportP.O. Box 10036St. Louis, Missouri 63145

St. Louis, MO 63117

IAQ (Indoor Air Quality)Mold, Bioaerosols

Environmental& Food MicrobiologyBuilding Materials& Environments

Ph. (314) 520-3386RECEIVE

D RECTOR'SOFFICE

Please reference Lambert Airport Smoking Lounge Evaluations and testing conducted on 9-16-06

Dear Mr. Slay;At your request, we are submitting this Environmental Testing Report related to our 9-16-06 evaluationof exhaust efficiency sf eight (8) Smoking Lounges at Lambert lnternational Airpott, as identified in ourattached air quality sampling record sheets. This report contains our Laboratory Alralyticai Data, ourPhysical Survey (Inspection) report, and Digital Video images of smoke test exhaust recorded on theenclosed CD disc. In addition, it is our understanding, from your personnel, that the HVAC systems havebeen, and are currently balanced and functioning per design capacities.Executive Summaw:It is our understanding that Global Environmental Consultants, Inc. (GEC) was contracted by Lambertlnternational Airports to perform an objective evaluation of the referenced smoking lounges to attempt todetermine whether they were performing in a satisfactory fashion with reference to design, and to attempto determine if a significant amount of smoke, products of combustion, or nicotine were escaping fromthese lounges, into the adjacent airport corridors.It is important to note that we (GEC) are Environmental Scientists, and Health & Safety Professionals. WDO NOT condone cigarette smoking, and believe that it has been repeatedly proven that smoking isharmful to your health. However, the purpose of this study was as indicated above, that is, to helpdetermine the status of the smoking lounges with respect to their intended purpose. Our measurementsincludedVisual Smoke flow tests, Airborne Particulatetests (Products of Combustion or "POC's"), andAirborne Nicotinetests. Reports of each of these parameters follow:Testina and Evaluation Results:

Visual Smoke Test: As can be seen in the digital video (mailed with the final report), we used asmoke generating tube to simulate exhaled, and burning-cigarette smoke, at each lounge. Wedischarged "puffsnof smoke in the center of each lounge, at the doorframe/corridor interface, andtwo feet out INTO the Terminal corridor. 'The purpose of discharging smoke in the Center of eachlounge was to VISUALLY determine whether the smoke within the lounges was being 'sucked" intthe ventilation system when it originated IN the lounges. The doorway discharge was to determineto some extent, IF a smoker standing in the doorway would impact on corridor air quality. It is ou


2/8

IAQ (Indoor AirQuality)Mold, Bioaerosols


scientific opinion that a viewing of the Visual information contained in the attached videodata indicates that smoke exhausted from these smoke generators WAS aggressively pulleINTO the smoke lounge when generated AT the doorframe, and smoke generated ustoutside of each lounge door, at an average distance of two feet directlv OUTSIDE of thesedoors, was still drawn INTO each smoking lounge. In addition, smoke generated at theCenter of each lounge was aggressively drawn directly into the overhead exhausts. Whilethis is not a quantifiable test method, it is important because it indicates that thefunctioning of the exhaust system is relatively INDEPENDENT of the number of smokerspresent at any given time. These observations also indicate that the exhaust systems areperforming very well and are not allowing sign licant smoke to escape from the lounges.Airborne Particulate Test: We performed Airborne Particulate ests in three locations related toeach smoking lounge (lab test reports attached). That is, the Center of each lounge, directly in thDooway of each lounge, and ten (10) feet directly in front of the lounge dooway (into thecorridor). The method used included using an instrument which collects a measured amount of aiinto a previoysly sealed cassette; this cassette contains a 'sticky" glass slide. The slide is coatedwith an acrylic resin, which traps airborne particles. These cassettes are manufactured in a 'cleanroom* environment. Each cassette was exposed to the same volume of measured air at eachlocation. Once the sample is collected, it is opened in a laboratory clean 'hood", and particles aremicroscopically categorized and quantified by a professional microscopist. The purpose of this tesis to determine if there are any appreciable differences in amounts and types of airborne particlesIN the smoking lounges, as compared to OUTSIDE of the smoking lounges. Since the nature oan Airport includes the presence of many particulate 'products of combustion" (burned etfuel etc.) in the OUTDOOR and INDOOR air, we were unable to identify a trend in signilicanconcentration differences from one area to another (including the smoking lounges)regarding these types of particles. This is likely due to the fact that "makeup" air, which is(necessarily) drawn into the building, AND into the smoking lounges, contains the sameparticulate material found ust outside of the building. In fact, one of the highest readingsfor particulates detected by this test was from the "OUTDOOR" sample. Again, theseparticles would be contributory to the particulate level INSIDE of the smoking lounges in thform of "make-up" air.Airborne Nicotine Tests: We performed Airbome Nicotine tests according to NlOSH method#2551 (lab test reports attached). We performed this type of test at the request of AirportRepresentatives. However, from a scientific point of view, Airborne Nicotine testing in a publicfacility may be marginally useful. Measurement of Airborne Nicotine does NOT necessarilyindicate its SOURCE. Nicotine, AND OTHER CIGARETTE SMOKE- related chemicals, can easilybe carried in the clothing and personal belongings of smokers passing through the facility. Thesechemicals and other smoke-related ODORS are typically carried in sticky TARS associated withsmokers. In our opinion, it would be possible for a public facility to have NO smoking loungespresent, and for Tar, Nicotine, and smokers Odors, to be present throughout the facility causingother patrons to smell these chemicals. Nicotine measurements (tests) in the corridor COULDdetect these chemicals, even in facilities where no smoking is allowed on sight. Therefore, wewould question the significance of Nicotine test results. In addition, the NlOSH method and relatePermissible Exposure Limits (PEL'S) are intended to determine acceptable Nicotine levels IN THE


3/8

IAQ (Indoor Air Quality)Mold, B ioaerosols

Environmental& Food M icrobiologyBuilding M aterials& Environments

WORK PLACE. We would hesitate to label a Smoking Lounge as part of a "work place"; howevethe adjacent corridors could be considered areas which individuals might consider smoke free.Because of these issues, we believe that measurement of the effectiveness of the exhaust system(Visual Smoke test), and "Mechanical" exhaust measurements, are very important. Our AirborneNicotine tests were conducted at similar locations, as were the Particulate tests. That is, wesampled IN the smoke lounges, at the doorway, and ten ( 1 0 ) feet directly in front of the loungdoor (in the corridor). Essentially, we found NO Airborne Nicotine test result above the OSHPEL (Permissible Exposure Limit). The acceptable limit is 0.5 mdm3. The HIGHEST resultwe obtained in ANY of our tested locations was 0.019 mgIm3. his highest nicotine levelwas even lower than the highest levels we detected in our previous nicotine measurement

It is very important to note that ALL testing is only relevant for the period of time at which the samples wecollected. In essence, test results are merely a "snapshotn n time, and the surrounding environment maychange, not just day-to-day, but minute-to-minute. Samples collected on one day can vary dramaticallyfrom samples collected on any other. This is why measurement of the actuai efficiency of the ventilationsystems, by the HVAC Engineering firm, is very important.Summary:As we indicated, we do not condone smoking. Decisions regarding the presence or absence of SmokingLounges at Lambert International Airport are clearly a decision to be made by Airport Administration.However, the Lounges do appear to be functioning in the manner intended. That is; from a practicapoint of view, consideration should be made regarding the potential problems and enforcement logistics,which may result from removal of the lounges. We are aware that a few other airports have no smokinglounges and, perhaps their experiences could be helpful. Our findings indicate that:

1 . Visual Smoke tests prove that the lounges are under sufficient "negative pressure" to "suck"smoke generated IN the lounges, AND smoke in and near the doorways, out trough their intendedexhaust ports.2 . Airborne Particle tests indicate that particle counts inside and outside of the lounges are notsignificantly different. This is likely due to the inherent nature of airports where burning of jet fuelscreates airborne particulate products of combustion. These particles are in OUTDOOR air and arsucked into lounges as "make-up" air. These results are as expected in properly functioningsmoking lounges.3 . Airborne Nicotine tests revealed that NONE of the test results, either INSIDE the smokinglounges, or OUTSIDE the lounges in the CORRIDORS, exceeded the OSHA Permissible ExposuLimits for nicotine. In fact, the highest nicotine reading obtained was only approximately40 % ofthat limit. We would expect SOME nicotine to be present in airports as imported on travelerclothing and personal belongings.

(Please note that, while we tested eight (8) smoking lounges for all test parameters indicated, weexperienced a minor video camera malfunction while taping the visual smoke exhaust tests in ONE of thelounges. Therefore, the enclosed CD contains video of only seven visual tests. However, we herein attes


4/8



that we personally and directly witnessed acceptable and aggressive smoke exhaust in ALL eight testedsmoking lounges.)Conclusions:As we indicated in our earlier report. the smoking lounaes appear to be vent ilat in~dequately.As we also indicated, as Environmental Scientists, we do not condone smoking and sincerelybelieve that cigarette smoke is hazardous to human health. We understand that some largecommercial Airports have removed smoking lounges completely, and we believe that removal of thesmoking lounges from Lambert Airport is an option, which should be considered. However, we alsobelieve that removal of these lounges may cause other problems. The potential for these problems shoube considered and anticipated:

Cigarette smokers are commonly known to undergo chemical withdrawal symptoms as timebetween cigarettes increases. This MAY cause smokers to take unusual risks, or act aggressive- if denied an opportunity to smoke.

We have been informed of instances where smokers, who have recently deplaned, and who havno smoking lounges available, nor time to leave the security areas, have smoked in restrooms.This has, at times, caused fires in waste receptacles and paper products, from the discardedcigarettes.We have also heard of instances where smokers will depart the security areas in order to smokewhile knowing they have little chance to return to the gate areas in time to board their connectingflight.Some of the circumstances described above, and a few similar others, have caused smokers tobe aggressive and pose a security problem due to aggressive behavior when attempting to enteror exit gate areas.

Recommendations:The decision to remove, or to keep, the Smoking Lounges at Lambert St Louis International Airpois an administrative one. Our testing indicates that the ventilation systems are working asdesi~ned.However, because of reasons and observations outlined in this report, and IF the lounges arretained,we make the following recommendations:IF THE SMOKING LOUNGES ARE RETAINED:

Ensure that the Ventilation System is constantly and properly maintained. This includes regularchecks of the effectiveness of the exhaust functions, ductwork integrity and cleaning, and filterchanges.Do NOT allow occupants of Smoking Lounges to cross the threshold of the lounge doorway whilesmoking. A Yellow line painted on the floor, and warning signs, might be effective. We do not


5/8


Environmental & Food MicrobiologyBuilding Materials & Environments

know if these boundaries are enforceable by security personnel, but if they are, that may beadvisable.Children should not be allowed in the Smoking Lounges. Again, this may not be enforceable.

Visibility of smokers in the lounges by passengers in the corridor could be blocked. This could beaccomplished by simply painting or covering the existing glass. We understand that this will dolittle to prevent smoke from escaping into the corridors, but it is our experience that a certainamount of psychosomatic ssues MAY cause non-smokers to object to seeing smokers, AND causmokers to desire smoking when seeing others smoke.

Copies of testing data are included wi th th is report.

president, - !*Environmental ScientistJlndustrial HygienistGlobal Environmental Consultants, Inc.. r * .St Louis, MO , ~;.,;

*Roman Narconis is qual ified as a Director of an American lndustrial Hygiene Association(AIHA) Accredited Laboratory which is specifically proficient in the analysis of EnvironmentalMicroorganisms. He is also a Registered Professional lndustrial Hygienist (RPIH), Registration# 07571100, with the Association o f Professional lndustrial Hygienists, and is a CMRS(Certified Mold Remediation Specialist), a fu ll member of the American lndustr ial HygieneAssociation (AIHA), the American Conference of Governmental lndustrial Hygienists (ACGIH)and is a spokesperson for the American Lung Association on the subjects of Indoor andOutdoor Air Quality.


6/8

Atln: RayNarconis CMometID: GLEC62Global lZnvhmmcn~alConsrrhWs, fnc- C~~smnerO:6614 C l q m Rmd ft302 DateReceiVat: ~ 1 2 0 ~:40AMSt- Louis,MO 3117F a x : 618-692-7498AitportReportDate: 09/25!06

EMSLMet: 28060t 373EMSL Projezt ID:DateA n a l y d WP21/06

Nicotine Analysis by GClN'PPDof Solid SorbentTubes via MOSH 2551, Issue 1,1/15/98RepLii m0.0

SarnpkConeCPm)0.0028

SPmpte1D# 12806013 7 3 ~ # i

SampLw w(P?D0.56

- 280601373-0002#3280601373-0003#4

280601373-0004

SPmpIcCmc(mg/m30.019-torrtion G.00050

llr5280601373-0005MI280601373-0r)06#7zsoeo1373MWn#8

280601373-0608#928060 1373-0009

# I 0280601 73401 0

# I 1 I

SampliagVolume(litem)

5k ($J Q ~ &$ ~ [ f o q$& IX lflZ

0.0

~ L E J C ~(Lf ( 0 ' 0 ~S~E2 \ . 57 r n

\h)JL 2157 he ' /SG2lST 1 0 ' 0 ~V h 1 && 3 %$

S h ~ l d c ~50 41.0033

cO.O(K150 0.0

30

3030 0.0 1230

3030

0.00

L ' ~ U S u , L W28060 37360 1 %CmJ'4#I2 ' c p o $~ 9 W M ~

q . 1 02.40

2806013736012tksorption Blank

a.0033o,om

d0.1010.10

0.75

3030

0

lo ( o q -3 6 Q c&LAEJ K

4.10a 1 0

4 . 1 0

0.00.00

N /

;(I30

e0.0033G.033

0.0.0033

0.13a .10

4.00050-=3.00050

4.00050

0.00.00.0

0.0043d.00330.010

N1.4 N/AI


7/8

[ OrderI33:280601373 1Ray N m i s 42wtomrTO: GLEC62Global -1 hc. Cusantrcrpo:6614 Clayton R o d #302 DsteReceived: 09120/069:MA.MSt tbais,MO 3117Fax: 6 84%-7498 EMSL Order. 280601373Project A i r p a MSLhojectID:RqmtDate: 09/25106 Dim Analyzul: 09/21 o6

Nicotine Analysis by GCMPDof Solid SorbentTubes via NIOSH 2551, Issue 1,1/15/98

Ellen BrannerA - w

RtpoLim(m*30.0

#14 Ac(&~2806013736014 30 0.10 0 . 0 3 3 0.00050 0.00!r am+''/

SmP)LCodc0SampleTD- - #1 3, %mote 'Weight(MI smp)cCnncim@n3)

280601373-0013

Lacationkc43 S o Y c , 0.00430125 C W E L

amplingVolumefi-1i3.85 0.02%


8/8

I EMSL A ne tic al , Inc1104OLhVaileDr. t h i r .MO 63123Phw:314245-8910.Fa: 1 W S U 5 9

-t: Globd Environmental Consultants. nc66 14 ClaytonRoad #302S t Louis,MO63117A- Ray Narconis

P ~ M ambert -Products f Combustion"Products of Combustion"EMSL MOO1 modified -POCAnalysis

Rdcma: 390602617m(rReporhd: 09/26/06Ikodllmehcdmk September 19,2006Darehdymd: 9125106-9/26/06

An* D. Schmidt

- - - -'Casette number 10335712

I I I

h m p k Volume (L)

Analylicd Sen* b 22 patklesper wtk KIetU

ApprovedEMSL%alytical~n~ ign6JctrreyW. Siria PbD, Labonbry Manager

POCL perm b imeter Commmta

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	bill-hannegan
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Global Environmental Study - Smoking Lounge Evaluations 9-16-2006

Documents