|
Rules for Smoking Breakroom Standards – Multnomah County Smokefree Work and Public Places MCC§ 21.500
Ventilation Standards*
1. Smoking breakrooms must have a negatively pressurized ventilation system that exhausts air to the exterior of the building with smoke-tight ducts. Termination of ducts must be not less than 30 feet from any air intake to the building, and any doors to the building.
2. Windows and doors of the smoking breakrooms shall be constructed in a manner that does not allow appreciable leakage of smoke ( for example using weather stripping) .
3. Doors between the smoking breakrooms and other parts of the building shall be self-closing and shall not allow appreciable leakage of smoke.
4. Minimum room ventilation is 100 cubic feet per minute per occupant in the smoking breakroom. Occupant load is determined from the State or Oregon Structural Specialty Code.
5. Smoking breakroom ventilation is to operate at all times that the room is occupied.
6. The building HVAC system must be balanced to prohibit any migration of smoke from the smoking breakroom to other parts of the building.
7. Smoking breakrooms shall be clearly identified as such.
Smoking breakrooms must meet the following conditions
1. The smoking room is not accessible to minors (under 18 years).
2. Air from the smoking room is exhausted directly to the outside by an exhaust fan and not recirculated to other parts of the building.
3. The smoking room is in compliance with ventilation standards established by the Department of Health by administrative rule.
4. The smoking room is located in a non-work area where no one, as part of his/her work responsibilities, is required to enter. For purposes of this paragraph, "work responsibilities" does not include custodial or maintenance work carried out in the smoking room when it is occupied.
5. There are sufficient nosmoking break rooms to accommodate nonsmokers.
* These standards became effective for all smoking breakrooms on January 1, 2001.
Adopted on the 15th day of June, 2000.
– See fines for violations below –
(return to top of page)
Fines for violations of Multnomah County's Smokefree Work and Public Places Law (MCC §21.500 et seq)
1. For a first complaint, no fine will be imposed. A written warning will be issued, with educational materials and a referral phone number for the Tobacco Prevention Program. The Tobacco Prevention Program will provide technical assistance to achieve compliance upon request.
2. For a second complaint, no fine will be imposed. Tobacco Prevention program staff will make an unannounced visit and work with the owner or manager of the facility to create a remediation plan, which must be completed within 2 weeks. We will make a second unannounced visit within 2 weeks of the remediation plan deadline. If we observe continued violations, we will issue a civil fine in the amount of $100.
3. For subsequent complaints, we will make an unannounced visit. If the Health Department substantiates the violation through investigation, a civil fine will be imposed according to the following schedule, except if no substantiated violations are committed for 12 months, the fine imposed will be the same as for the first substantiated violation.
Substantiated Violation Fine
|
First
|
|
$100
|
Second
|
|
$250
|
Third
|
|
$500
|
Fourth and each subsequent violation
|
|
$1,000
|
|
|
4. Fines must be paid or appealed within 30 days. Fines imposed under this rule may be appealed in writing to the Director of the Multnomah County Department of Health. The Director’s decision will be final.
Fines became effective as of July 1, 2000.
|
|
Benefits to businesses
- Smokefree laws save businesses money on operation and maintainance. A smokefree business requires less cleaning, and fewer replacements of furnishings.
- The risk of fire drops, reducing insurance premiums (1) and employers are protected from liability by protecting their worker's and patron's health
- Employees who smoke miss more work than other workers so absenteeism is reduced(2). Laws usually cause 25% of smokers to quit entirely and 50% cut down dramatically.
- Smokefree laws also do not negatively affect sales receipts (3) or employment (4). In fact, Oregon data on consumer intentions show that more consumers would increase their restaurant visits than would decrease them if a smokefree law passed. In either case however, 76% of the public would not change their eating habits (5).
- In a recent survey in Multnomah County, 72% of voters favored a workplace law that includes all restaurants (7).
1. American Thoracic Society. (1996). Cigarette smoking and health. American Journal of Respiratory Critical Care Medicine. 153. 861-865.
2. Strachan, DP & Cook, DG. (1997). Parental smoking and lower respiratory illness in infancy and early childhood. Thorax. 52. 905-914.
3. United States Department of Health and Human Services. (1986). Report of the Surgeon General: the health consequences of involuntary smoking. DHHS Pub. No (PHS) 87-8398. Washington, DC.
4. Kinne, S, Kristal, AR, White, E, & Hunt, J. (1993). Work-site smoking policies: their population impact in Washington State. American Journal of Public Health. 83.(7). 1031-1033.
5. Pierce, JP, Evans, N, Farkas, AJ, et al. (1994). Tobacco Use In California. An Evaluation of the Tobacco Control Program, 1989-1993. La Jolla, CA, University of California, San Diego; 1994.
6. Swart, J.C. (1990). An Overlooked Cost of Employee Smoking. Personnel.
7. Multnomah County Voter Survey Results. (1999). Davis & Hibbitts.
More evidence supporting smokefree businesses
There are now published data on the economic impact of smoking restrictions on restaurant sales for 81 localities in 6 states: 67% of these are completely smoke-free in restaurants. All have used sales tax data to objectively measure the impact and the results overwhelmingly show that tobacco control ordinances DO NOT affect sales in restaurants (Glantz, SA (1999)). Smoke-free ordinances do not affect restaurant business. Period. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice. 5(1). vi-ix.
- This is supported by data from the Oregon Health Division Restaurant Survey (1998) which asked restaurant owners who had voluntarily adopted a smoke-free policy how business had changed as a result. Of the 166 restaurants in the sample who had changed to a smokefree policy at least a year prior, 24% reported an increase in business, 27% reported no change, and only 8% reported a decrease. 41% did not know the impact on business
- A study of bars in 5 cities and two counties with matched comparisons showed no impact on bar sales after a smokefree restaurant and bar ordinance was passed. (Glantz, SA, & Smith, LRA. (1997). The effect of ordinances requiring smoke-free restaurants and bars on revenues: a follow up. American Journal of Public Health. 87(10). 1687-1893.)
- A study in New York City to see if the smokefree ordinance affected tourism found that hotel receipts were up compared with the rest of the state (which did not have an ordinance) after the ordinance passed. (Hyland, A, Cummings, KD, & Naurenberg, E. (1999). Analysis of taxable sales receipts: was New York City's Smoke-Free Air Act bad for restaurant business? Journal of Public Health Management and Practice. 5(1). 14-21.)
- Employment also does not seem to be affected. New York City's restaurant employment rate increased compared to the rest of the state after passing a tobacco control ordinance. (Hyland, A & Cummings, KM. (1999). Restaurant employment before and after the New York City Smoke-Free Air Act. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice. 5(1). 22-27.)
- In California it was found that 85% of people go to bars as much or more than they did prior to the ordinance. (Rankin, T. et al. (1998). Letter to California Legislature. Sacramento, CA: BREATH, A Project of the American Lung Association.)
- In the 1997 Tobacco Baseline Survey of Oregonians, people responded that if there were an ordinance banning smoking in restaurants 76% would not change their eating out behavior, 17% would eat out more, and only 7% would eat out less. If smoking were banned from bars 76% would not change their behavior, 13% would go to bars more often and only 9% would go to bars less often.
(return to top of page)
|
