If the internal and external temperatures are the same then the building height can be infinite and the test can still be performed.

Temp difference * height < 1180, so
height/1180 = maximum temperature difference

Good luck with the weather!

Curtis - did you ever receive or find any guidance for the blower door testing requirements?

no I did not...

With respect to sampling, the v2009 rating system language references Chapter 4 of the Residential Manual for Compliance with California's 2001 Energy Efficiency Standards and includes a link to that standard.

LEED InterpretationLEED Interpretations are official answers to technical inquiries about implementing LEED on a project. They help people understand how their projects can meet LEED requirements and provide clarity on existing options. LEED Interpretations are to be used by any project certifying under an applicable rating system. All project teams are required to adhere to all LEED Interpretations posted before their registration date. This also applies to other addenda. Adherence to rulings posted after a project registers is optional, but strongly encouraged. LEED Interpretations are published in a searchable database at usgbc.org. 5170 summarizes the sampling methodology from that standard as follows.

... residential units will be grouped together based on unit type. Testing will be conducted on one (1) in seven (7) units in each group. Should any of the residential units fail the test, the construction contractor can resolve the issue prior to re-testing that unit. Should any of the remaining 1 in 7 units in that group fail the test, the entire group will be deemed to fail. The contractor will then correct every unit in that group prior to every unit being tested.

Thank you Ben - wondering if you can also help with another related question:

I am working on a a large multifamily building for EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. with over 500 units. The owner does not want to eliminate smoking in the apartments. The building is pressurized and each apartment is exhausted 100% of the time. We can easily prove the pressure differential between the hallways and apartment units. Is this sufficient to satisfy the tobacco smoke prerequisite or is blower door testing required for occupied units to prove that smoke does not transfer between apartments? The blower door testing will be very intrusive to tenants and costly. Have you completed a similar project with a large number of apartment units? Or Jason Franken - have you?
Interested to hear how others have approached this...

Blower door testing is still required as far as I know. Are there any vacant units that could be tested? Maybe if you could at least conduct the testing for the vacant units and then adopt a policy to verify leakage for other units when they turnover, it might be plausible. But, this type of strategy would need to be confirmed through a project specific LEED interpretationLEED Interpretations are official answers to technical inquiries about implementing LEED on a project. They help people understand how their projects can meet LEED requirements and provide clarity on existing options. LEED Interpretations are to be used by any project certifying under an applicable rating system. All project teams are required to adhere to all LEED Interpretations posted before their registration date. This also applies to other addenda. Adherence to rulings posted after a project registers is optional, but strongly encouraged. LEED Interpretations are published in a searchable database at usgbc.org..

Good question, we are dealing with the same problem. Does anyone know something about testing vertical chases and if cabel channels or service ducts can be excluded, if openings are not accessable?
Thanks

In our experience, it has been sufficient to conduct differential pressure testing for spaces that share an opening with the smoking room. It may help your cause to also provide a description of the conditions/construction of the room that ensures that smoke doesn't migrate to other spaces.

We have not been required to address cable channels or service ducts.

Mary Ann, I don't see an argument for that being  compliant—do you?

My worry is that the guard house is regularly occupied and has an opening (a door and window).

To elaborate more on my situation, inside the project boundary is the main building and an isolated guard house. In between those areas are parking lots. So the client proposed to place the smoking area away from the main building, but not so close to the guard house. The problem is that the proposed smoking area is within 25 feet away from the guard house which is regulary occupied.

To verify, this is proposed area is compliant? Thanks.

Mary Ann, I don't see it being compliant. I agree with you that the fact that the guard house is occupied is problemtic for this proposed area.

Wolfgang, I agree, it would be good for USGBC to define this. However, my understanding is that the definition would be very broad—encompassing pretty much any opening in the envelope, including the examples you gave.

Hi All,

Is there already an official interpretation or definition from USGBC/GBCI regarding the building entries and excemptions for some entries, if any?

This also concerns our project where the owner proposes a smoking area at roof deck but near a storage room. The storage room has an opening (a door) and nothing else; it will not introduce 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. inside the building because the wall partitons are concreted from floor to ceiling, and it is also rarely used. While all other building opening that may introduce ETS inside the building is 25 feet away.

Would appreciate your thoughts.

Mary Ann, what is being stored there? Thirdhand smoke is a real problem.

Kimberly,

I believe the answer to your question is under the first section of the Checklists tab above, have you looked there?

Elizabeth, that sounds to me like it would not meet the credit requirements.

Yes...it looks like we will be transitioning to a non smoking building - was pretty sure that this would not work, but thought it best to ask -

Michael, can you clarify how this does not meet the 25-foot requirement? I'm a little unsure of the specifics from your description.

The proposed smoking cabin is located at the edge of the terrace. There are windows on the floor below and the door to the building is also within 25 feet.

The smokers will be within a self-contained, filtered room that is on the premises but not in the building and the manual did not anticipate this possibility. The requirements for venting a smoking room are actually not as specific as those for the location of an external smoking area - although in this case it appears we can locate the vent to meet the 25 foot requirement if necessary.

Michael, if you can keep any openings from the smoking area 25 feet away from any openings to the building, I think you should be okay.

Alyson,
I can't give any advice based on previous GBCI reviews. That said, I believe you should be able to add signage or language only as appropriate, provided you clearly explain in the review response that there are no operable windows and what the situation is re: air intakes.

Your strategy would vary depending on the project's circumstances: If there are places where a person *could* smoke within 25' of an air intake (vertically, as well as horizontally), then you should post additional signage at those locations indicating no smoking within 25'. Or you could include the entry and air intake language on all signage, at entries as well as at any site entry points if someone could travel past air intakes before they reach the signage at an entry.

In any case, be sure to explain why you've omitted some of the typical language. You might also consider marking up a site plan or floor plan showing entries, air intakes, and signage locations.

Thanks for the quick reply Michael. I like the idea of marking up a mechanical plan to show where outdoor air intakes are. I will submit that as well.

It just seems excessive to post signage at seemingly 'random' locations that may be within 25 vertical feet of an OA intake....since we know that people often ignore signage.

What does the community think about this language.
The Fulton County
Clean Indoor Air Ordinance
Prohibits Smoking
In this Building
And Within 25 feet of Building, Except at
Designated Area on 2nd floor of Parking Garage

(the format is with the intention to leave existing language in place and only add whats necessary)

We would like to direct smokers to the designated area that happens to be up against the building, but 25' away from door, OA intake, and operable windows.

I would consider the loading dock as an interior space that is the workplace for regular building occupants, therefore the smoking area as you describe it would not be exterior to the project building. It would probably be good to consider the opening to the loading dock (i.e. bayA bay is a component of a standard, rectilinear building design. It is the open area defined by a building element such as columns or a window. Typically, there are multiple identical bays in succession. doors, missing fourth wall, etc.) as a building aperature and work to place the smoking area at least 25 feet from that opening as well.

Since those locations are part of the building being certified, I would say that should be treated in the same way, with the proper signage. Make sense?

Emma - In contrast to Lori's situation below, this one is thornier. It sounds like you are proposing making operable doors (which are operable under normal conditions) temporarily inoperable when you have to set up the smoking area. If I were a reviewer, that would make me nervous simply because it requires someone to remember, and enforce, that door-locking plan every month. I don't want to say that its a dealbreaker, but I'm not sure it would fly. Sorry I can't offer a more definitive answer.

Thanks for your response Dan,

I understand it's a bit of a make-shift fix, but what if the door locking plan was enforced? Our smoking pits currently have security personnel monitoring them anyways, and locked doors are high on their list of priorities.

My main concern however was whether these temporarily locked doors would be considered airtight enough to constitute as temporariy walls basically. People would potentially be smoking next to these locked doors, not 7.5 m away.

Emma, how airtight are these doors? That would make me a bit nervous—most doors would not be airtight enough.

It's an interesting one - Is there any way you could perform some kind of airflow testing (I am imagining some combination of a blower door to provide negative pressure and a smudge stick) to give the reviewer confidence that the closed/locked doors are an effective barrier to cigarette smoke? Theoretically, just documenting that the building has positive pressure would ensure that no smoke could come in that way, but this is all kind of hazy and I wonder if we are really working at the margins of concern for this issue. A closed/locked door is going to be pretty effective I would think, but not as effective as a wall. It's a tough one!

Dan

Thanks Dan and Tristan. If we go ahead with this plan I will provide proof about the air tightness through airflow testing or something of the like.

Totally acceptable fix Lori - you've turned that door into a wall, which means no smoke will be coming in the building when people open it.

Shoko, you do need to "verify" the pressure differential, even with slab to slab partitions.

I think you could probably get away with skipping the measurement between smoking rooms, but it's probably necessary to note that approach in your narrative, as it's not the standard approach.

Tristan, thank you for your reply.

We have problem to measure differential pressure between two spaces, when they are not connected by door way. It requires long tube to connect two places if we use differential-pressure measuring instrument. Do you think we can measure "gauge pressure" or "absolute pressure" separately and compare them?
I believe we have to close the door when we implement measurement. With instrument’s tube, the door cannot be shut properly.

Shoko, that sounds like the approach you need to take here. I would think you'd need very accurate instruments.

Ashu, the 1.25 square inches of leakage area is an absolute quantity not dependent on air pressure.

You use the ASTMVoluntary standards development organization which creates source technical standards for materials, products, systems, and services to derive this calculation, and I believe you can use a variety of pressures to do it.

Almost any Test & Balance company or commissioning company should have a blower door testA blower door test gives an overall value for airtightness of a space, and can help identify air leaks. The testing unit consists of a calibrated fan that is sealed onto the unit entrance. The fan creates a continuous flow of pressure into the unit (or out of the unit when using theatrical fog to locate leaks). Devices detect the rate of pressure retention and loss due to possible air leaks in the construction. kit. We are located in the states and to get anybody from the United States to go out there and perform the test would probably be cost prohibitive. But I am sure there are companies over there. Look in the NEBB, AABC or TABB websites for companies in your part of the world. The tool itself is less thatn $3,000, and each test is only about $400. Good luck in finding somebody locally to perform the job

In anticipating response(s), I should probably clarify my question/concern: Oregon law prohibits smoking within 10 feet of workplace entries/exits/air intakes/operable windows, and requires posting signage to that effect. It also allows a workplace to extend the prohibition distance *on the property*.

In the case of a project which opens directly onto the public sidewalks, there is thus a 10-foot, legally required no-smoking zone. However, as noted in previous comments, the building has no legal ability to prohibit smoking to the LEED 25-foot distance, when that extends off the property.

In this case, are we OK with the legally required "no smoking within 10 feet" signage? Anything beyond that is basically asking nicely, but is unenforceable, and might cause confusion with regards to the state 10-foot no-smoking zone.

To clarify, to earn the LEED prerequisite, you absolutely must have a policy that prohibits smoking within 25 feet of all building entrances, operable windows and air intakes. The review team is not going to allow you to fall back on state law which is not as stringent as the LEED requirements.

So, the real question becomes: how do you enforce a 25-foot restriction on a zero-lot line building? Zero-lot line buildings all over the country encounter challenges with this requirement. However, please keep in mind that LEED is not asking for you to initiate legal or police action if a person violates your smoking policy. When it comes down to it, all you can do (and all that LEED expects of you) is to create your policy, communicate it to building occupants and tenants, and post appropriate signage to ensure that people know that this particular building does not allow smoking within 25 feet of any building openings. Your previous comment hit the nail on the head - you're basically relying in good faith on people to observe your building policies. If someone smokes next to a door, you can ask them nicely to stop. If they don't stop, then it's up to building management/security to decide how they want to handle that. LEED wants to see that you're doing as much as possible to enforce a compliant smoking policy, so focus on meeting those requirements.

Thanks for your reply, Jason. While I agree with the gist of your comments, I don't think it adequately addresses the specific technicalities of this situation.

The prerequisite language does not say that you must have a "policy that prohibits smoking within 25 feet ...". Rather, the policy must "prohibit _on-property_ smoking within 25 feet ..." [emphasis added].

Given that LEED only requires the prohibition of "on-property" smoking, Oregon state law appears to me to actually be more stringent, not less -- in this specific case of a property which has no exterior, _on-property_ areas which extend further from an entance/exit/window/intake than what is covered by state law. The law prohibits smoking within 10 feet of an entrance, etc., period -- regardless of whether that is on or off the property. (The law then allows an owner the option to extend the prohibition beyond 10 feet _on the property_. But we don't have any exterior property that extends beyond the 10-foot prohbition of state law.)

I think we either submit with photos of the 10-foot signage and narrative / site plan showing that 10 feet covers all exterior, on-property areas; OR I go to the state DHS and ask them if the property would still be in compliance with the law if we posted a "no smoking within 25 feet" sign.

I'm wondering if there are any further thoughts on this topic. Jason's comments were pretty clear that it's 25 feet and signage should probably reflect that. But, when I looked at the 2009 EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. form for this prerequisite for a project I'm working on, it seems to give the option to indicate whether you are either (1) prohibiting smoking on the entire project site, OR, (2) you are prohibiting smoking within the 25 foot guideline. Looking at the LEED form, it seems that prohibiting smoking on the entire project site would suffice for the exterior component of this prerequisite. Am I correct? I'm in the same boat with the originator of this inquiry as I'm working with a tight urban site with public sidewalks running in front of our building's retail units.

As long as you're not doctoring or enhancing the signage itself, this is probably useful for reviewers, and appreciated.

Ashu,

A couple of thoughts:

1. The easiest thing if possible might just be to prohibit smoking throughout the building, and then you wouldn't need to bother with the blower door testing. Is that possible?

2. ASTMVoluntary standards development organization which creates source technical standards for materials, products, systems, and services-0779-03, as I understand it, just outlines that method for conducting the blower door tests, and I would think that there's no reason you need a special lab to perform the tests. I think as long as you can get the equipment and have personnel with the appropriate skills you don't even need a third party to do the testing - I've heard of teams that got their building engineers equipped to perform the tests themselves. Maybe others can chime in on this??

Jenny,

1. Its a five Star hospitality project, so smoking can not be prohibited in through out the building. Hotel has 20% smoking designated rooms. Other than these smoking is prohibited in all common areas.
2. Can you please tell us the procedure to perform this test or any alternate to achieve this prerequisite for hospitality project.

Thanks,
Ashu

Ashu, have you checked our Air Sealing Guidance for LEED-EBOM IEQp2? I think this will answer some of your questions.

Tristan, I have checked these guidelines. I would like to know that is blower test necessary for hotels rooms also or only for residential units. In my country i could not found any blower test technician who perform this test easily. so can you please suggest ant alternate path to achieve this prerequisite.

Ashu, if you're not able to prohibit smoking or limit it to designated places, then that puts you in Option 2, Case 2, which requires blower door testing for both residential and hospitality. I don't know of a way around this.

What is the obstacle you're having to blower-door testing? The testing units can be purchased and are not diffcult to use, as far as I know.

The key requirement doesn't depend on the path of occupant entry, but rather the proximity to any sort of opening in the building envelope. If building occupants are using that 6th-floor patio and smoking within 25 feet of the doorways, any operable windows, and/or any outdoor air intakes, the project building would not meet the requirements for this prerequisite.

Kevin, I don't have first-hand experiences, but I'm not aware of any particular rules or standards around signage so I think you have latitude to choose a solution that works for your building, provided you can justify it and it actually works.

Your approach seems fairly reasonable, although I worry that it could be a bit too subtle. Have you considered markings on the sidewalk? Also, will there be butt collectors of some kind? These could be used to help indicate the designated area.

Barbara, I think what you are encountering here is that the LEED Online forms are dynamic, i.e., once you choose a submittal path, e.g. "O&M Submittal Path," there are some inputs that show up that you wouldn't see if you were just perusing the form.

Once you choose this path, there is a place to upload signage communicating the smoking policy on the exterior of the building.

If smoking is completely disallowed inside the building, you simply need owner sign-off to that effect, you don't have to upload additional documentation.

I share Barbara's question, to an extent. I'm working on a school project that prohibits smoking anywhere on the campus. When that submittal path is selected, the required upload is merely for signage evidence and not a policy document, yet the prereq. seems to require the latter (of course in addition to the owner signatures). Can you clarify? Thanks.