Ellen,

Not that I disagree with you, but could you ask the building management to add signs at the enterances? Clearly the reviewer is adhering to the letter of the law here. Did you look for any CIRs to support this compliance path? I assume you're going to appeal this ruling?

Hi Emily,
Unfortunately exterior signage is not an option. The building management feels like they have taken the necessary steps to fullfil their LEED requirements - who can blame them? They also have other CI Certified projects in their building, so they are having a hard time understanding why we are different.

We are looking into our options. The most frustrating aspect is that the requirements for Option 2 seem to change. In the denial response, we were given the option of providing a building management letter stating the smoking policy. When we asked why that wasn't mentioned in the first round of review comments, the response back said nothing about a letter, but told us we must provide No Smoking signage inside our office space. This seems to make even less sense as the entire building is non-smoking under both building management and City of Atlanta ordinance. So I guess now my question is....is it reasonable to think any employee or visitor would be tempted to light up inside an office? What exactly is the point of these signs?

Maybe the more important question is where are either of these options found? I have scoured all the interpretations and discussions, and can find nothing on either one.

Needless to say, we are quite frustrated.

Hi Emily,

That's frustrating on many levels but particularly because the issue at hand seems nit picky rather than something that will have a substantive impact on the operations of the building. But, I think that there are some good actions that you can take.

Based on your description, it seems like the review team is getting caught up in the requirement included on the credit form to "provide evidence of signage communicating the exterior
smoking policy". Of course, signage isn't the only way to effectively communicate the smoking policy to the occupants in your tenant spaceTenant space is the area within the LEED project boundary. For more information on what can and must be in the LEED project boundary see the Minimum Program Requirements (MPRs) and LEED 2009 MPR Supplemental Guidance. Note: tenant space is the same as project space. or in the rest of the building. But there are likely some other mechanisms in place to actively communicate the policy to all building occupants and specifically the occupants in your tenant space. I would focus on developing a narrative that stresses the point that the smoking policy is actively communicated to occupants in ways other than signage and provide detail about those mechanisms. In that way, signage is unnecessary because your building is able to get to the result that matters, which is that people are not smoking in the building or within 25ft of it. To bolster this argument, I would describe the procedures that building management has in place to make sure that people aren't smoking within 25ft of the door. For example, security or other building personnel direct anyone who is smoking by the door to move further away.

I've seen this type of approach work with EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. projects and in my mind it's silly to have signage as the only communication tool available to project teams.

It might make sense to try and communicate your line of thought to the review team through the messages tab on LEED Online before submitting the appeal, especially if you feel that a new issue was raised that was not included in the Preliminary Review.

Hi Ben,

We have already begun communication with GBCI and are in the process of trying to come to a resolution. I agree with you and argued that the problem lies in the form. It seems to me that the signage requirement for Option 1 is completely reasonable and is intended mainly for projects in which the tenant occupies the whole building or at least controls some street level areas. Option 2 seems to be more applicable to cases like ours in which there is no public exterior space, but unfortunately the form doesn't break out the requirements per option and so the signage upload requirement appears regardless. We did upload a building management letter confirming the non smoking policy as well as a detailed narrative explaining how no ETSEnvironmental tobacco smoke (ETS), or secondhand smoke, consists of airborne particles emitted from the burning end of cigarettes, pipes, and cigars, and is exhaled by smokers. These particles contain about 4,000 compounds, up to 50 of which are known to cause cancer. can get into the tenant spaceTenant space is the area within the LEED project boundary. For more information on what can and must be in the LEED project boundary see the Minimum Program Requirements (MPRs) and LEED 2009 MPR Supplemental Guidance. Note: tenant space is the same as project space. through windows, entries or air handling units. That should have been plenty, but the reviewer only sees that we didn't fulfill the signage requirement and denies the credit without analyzing the situation.

I will certainly post an update once we get things straightened out. Hopefully this signage aspect won't be a deal-breaker for future CI projects.

Update: the final ruling is as follows (I'm paraphrasing):

In order for our project to demonstrate compliance under Option 2, signage must be installed at all exterior CI project entrances which communicates the exterior smoking policy to all occupants and visitors. Projects without direct access to the exterior can provide a copy of the LEED CI or base building smoking policy in lieu of signage. However, as our project has a terrace space (which is completely non-smoking and inaccessible to the public), the policy was not an option for us. We had to provide signage at the terrace entry.

This still seems a little nit picky, but GBCI did waive our appeal fee due to the inconsistency of the rulings, so I consider that a successful compromise.

I meant the differential air pressureThe difference in air pressure between two spaces, potentially leading, in the case of a pressure difference, to the migration of contaminants from one space to another. When using a designated smoking room ror environmental tobacco smoke control, you may need to test the differential air pressure in the smoking room with respect to each adjacent area and in each adjacent vertical chase with the doors to the smoking room closed. The testing will be conducted with each space configured for worst case conditions of transport of air from the smoking rooms to adjacent spaces with the smoking rooms' doors closed to the adjacent spaces. The test can be conducted by a mechanical engineer. The test should involve 15 minutes of measurement, with a minimum of one measurement every 10 seconds. With the doors to the smoking room closed, operate exhaust sufficient to create a negative pressure with respect to the adjacent spaces of at least an average of 5 Pa (0.02 inches of water gauge) and with a minimum of 1 Pa (0.004 inches of water gauge). test (not blower test). Is this pressure test required in that case or is it enough to submit mechanical system drawings showing that smoking rooms are isoleted from other areas and that they have separate exhaust system?

Melissa, I think you'll find this discussion on the EBOM IEQp2 forum useful.

Lucy, have you looked at Option 2, Case 1? (See more information in the tabs above.)

I have currently the exact same problem as Lucy, project is located inside an office building in Mexico City, smoking is prohibited on the inside, but there isn't any regulation on the outside that prohibits smoking within 25' from entrances, and tenants have no power over the entire building policy. I have looked at option 2, case 1, but I don't finish to get it, could an alternative be to prove that no ETSEnvironmental tobacco smoke (ETS), or secondhand smoke, consists of airborne particles emitted from the burning end of cigarettes, pipes, and cigars, and is exhaled by smokers. These particles contain about 4,000 compounds, up to 50 of which are known to cause cancer. can migrate from terraces (where smoking is allowed) to inside the building through natural ventilation?

I doubt that smoke does not migrate inside from terraces, and it would be very difficult to prove that it does. In any case, I don't think that LEED would be flexible on that requirement.

Lucy, I would like to know what happened in the end with your project. Our prerequisite compliance is currently pending and we are having trouble on documenting for the final review. Which path did you follow?

It seems like your approach would meet the letter of the LEED requirements, but not the spirit.

Plus, how will the neighbors feel about being the recipient of all this tobacco smoke? Will they ask the smokers to move, and if they move, will they be forced back within 8 m of the LEED building's openings? Seems like it may comply, but problematic.

The requirement is to ban smoking inside the building and 25 feet away from entrances and air intakes. If the law only states that smoking in not permitted in the building, they still need either exterior signs prohibiting smoking 25 feet from the building or place designated smoking areas, such as ashtrays 25 feet away.

Historically, all we've needed to provide is a brief letter from the owner (or management) on their letterhead stating that the property is either 100% non-smoking, or that smoking is allowed somewhere and then state how and where and make sure that it aligns with the requirements.

No photos, diagrams or other documentation is usually submitted.