Interior smoking is not allowed in many building types, and for those projects, this prerequisite should be easy and not add costs. It may even be the only legal option. To comply, you may need to establish a nonsmoking policy in and around the building (including entrances and balconies), and install appropriate signage.
Multifamily residences and hotels may feel compelled to allow smoking in some or all units, and some projects, like airports, have designated smoking rooms. In these cases, stringent measures will be needed to stop movement of smoke from smoking to nonsmoking areas. These measures include air barriers between units, negative air pressure in smoking areas, separate exhaust systems, and blower-door testing, all of which may add design and construction costs. The added trouble of these measures is offset by some added benefits. The air barrier in particular can improve energy efficiency as well as acoustical privacy.
Meeting the air leakage rateThe speed at which an appliance loses refrigerant, measured between refrigerant charges or over 12 months, whichever is shorter. The leakage rate is expressed in terms of the percentage of the appliance's full charge that would be lost over a 12-month period if the rate stabilized. (EPA Clean Air Act, Title VI, Rule 608). requirements for projects that must perform blower-door testing (multi-family and hotel projects allowing smoking) can be extremely challenging and a major barrier toward achieving LEED certification. The leakage rates require construction practices for unit sealing that are far beyond standard practice and as a result, many projects have failed the blower door tests and have not been eligible for certification.
It is critical that a blower-door-testing consultant be brought onboard during design development or early duing construction documents to ensure that drawings are detailed enough to properly seal units. Get the whole team, including the commissioning agent, general contractor, and subcontractors on board with the necessary practices, and keep this same expert involved during construction to ensure proper sealing techniques are being followed.
Project teams should perform a mock test of a typical unit to ensure sealing techniques are being followed and to identify any potential locations of air leakage. This ensures that problem areas are identified early on in the construction process so that problems can be corrected for the remainder of units. It can be very costly to correct common problem areas across a project if the testing is only done at the completion of the project.
Yes, if local regulations are not as strict as LEED, you must create a policy that complies with LEED standards (and communicate this policy to building users) to achieve this prerequisite. Exterior signage which communicates the policy is required so that all occupants, visitors, and passersby are made aware of the exterior smoking policy.
The Reference Guide doesn’t explicitly make a distinction between a regular door and an emergency exit, making this a bit of a gray area. The safest bet is to assume they’re treated the same way under this prerequisite, which would require relocation of the smoking area to a compliant distance. If you’d like a definitive answer to this question you can submit a CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide.
The 25 feet should be calculated from the closest point within the smoking area to the building opening, going around any solid objects (balconies, walls, etc.) as needed. For calculating distances between a lower level smoking area and an upper floor building opening, it should be calculated starting from the ceiling of the lower floor to the nearest (lowest) point in the upper floor opening.
No. Visitors and other non-employees might not be familiar with the building policies or local smoking laws.
Establish the smoking policies for interior spaces and exterior spaces, including balconies, by working with the building owner. Many municipal codes do not permit smoking in public buildings, so banning smoking (Option 1) may be the only legal option in some cases.
Additional consultant costs may arise from documentation and testing processes, if projects choose to have interior designated smoking areas.
For residential applications,adopting a no-smoking policy in Homeowners Association policies can be a good strategy for reducing ETS transfer between units. This type of policy has also been sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the prerequisite requirements for LEED-NC v2.2.
Air sealing between units is recommended for several reasons, even if smoking is banned. In multifamily buildings and hotels it is common for occupants to smoke inside their units despite nonsmoking policies. Without air sealing between units, other occupants may be exposed to secondhand smoke and odors. Air sealing between units also improves energy performance, particularly in high rises subject to the stack effect, in which warm, buoyant air rises upward, leading to thermal losses and ventilation problems. Acoustic privacy is also improved by air sealing, and air sealing also reduces pathways for vermin.
High quality construction using air sealing can be marketed as a building feature for multi-unit construction, and has been shown to attract premium rents and sales prices.
Banning smoking on private balconies is necessary if they are within 25 feet of a neighbor’s operable window or another building opening, even if smoking is allowed inside the unit. Multifamily tenants may be unhappy with these rules, so owners should carefully consider their policies, the needs and habits of their tenants, and the design and location of balconies and openings.
If allowing smoking in some units, clustering those rooms on one floor can keep the need for special air sealing and hallway pressurization strategies (which can be used in lieu of weatherstripping) relatively contained.
Incorporate smoking-related requirements into the commissioning documentation, including the Owner’s Project Requirements and the Basis of Design for EAp1: Fundamental Commissioning.
Designate the location of outdoor smoking areas, if any, on design drawings. Ensure that these areas are appropriately removed from building windows, ventilation opens, and entrances, and entrance paths.
The mechanical engineer ensures that the HVAC design meets the exhaust and pressure levels of the LEED requirements. Also ensure that all units will receive adequate fresh air. A certain amount of air infiltration may be assumed, but the careful air-sealing associated with this credit may reduce the infiltration below expected levels. Ensure that mechanical systems, operable windows, or a combination, are able to provide enough ventilation. Make sure that pressure differences between the hallway and unit are enough to prevent cross contamination, but not so much that doors slam doors shut or are difficult to operate.
Operating energy use may be increased by maintaining the negative pressure requirements for interior designated smoking rooms. Designated smoking rooms in commercial properties can also add upfront costs associated with construction and design, added ventilation loads, and air sealing and deck-to-deck partitions. On the other hand, increased air sealing can decrease energy costs and increase rents, as noted earlier.
Eliminating smoking in a building costs virtually nothing and is the simplest way to control environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Possible associated costs would be the cost of signage indicating that the building is non-smoking and the development of a nonsmoking policy. Benefits include occupant health and productivity, and reduced cleaning and maintenance.
In non-residential construction when smoking will be banned (Option 1), incorporate smoking-related signage into plans and construction specifications. Fill out LEED submittal template and upload all supporting documentation to LEED Online.
If smoking is to be allowed in certain areas (Option 2), integrate deck-to-deck partitions and weatherstripping or pressurization into plans and construction document specifications.
Identify potential air leakage points in design and construction plans early. Common examples of areas where leakage occur include electrical boxes, air registers, window frames, and where walls meet the floor.
If pursuing a blower door test, ask a blower-door or air-barrier expert to review construction documents and shop drawings prior to the actual testing to ensure that problem areas, including deck to deck partitions, are likely to be sealed according to specifications.
Ensure that the blower door test is included in the contractor’s or any other responsible parties’ scope of work.
If smoking is to be allowed in certain areas (Option 2), fill out LEED submittal template and upload all supporting documentation to LEED Online.
A no-smoking policy for construction workers is not required for this prerequisite, but is a good practice, especially after the enclosure is installed, and will help achieve EQc3.1: Construction IAQ Management.
Orient all subcontractors to air-sealing goals and quality-control practices.
The contractor schedules any necessary air pressure or blower door tests in their proper sequence. Testing occurs at various construction phases and ideally with a test unit to identify any leakages and opportunities for improvement in other units.
Involve an experienced blower-door testing agent in visual inspections before drywall is installed in any of the units. This will ensure that problem areas are addressed while they are still easily accessible. Also bring the blower-door expert in for early testing, once the drywall is installed, but before painting, finish materials, and appliances are installed. This will point out penetrations that need to be sealed between units and allow contractors to address those penetrations in the remaining units to ensure that all units meet the standard.
Conduct blower door tests, which in multifamily and hotel applications typically require a sampling of one out of every seven units. See the Home Energy Rating System program (link) for details on sampling rates. For any spaces that do not pass the blower door pressure test, correct any potential problems and retest, or another space has to be tested until 100 percent of the requisite number of spaces have successfully passed.
The cost of a blower door test will vary by region and project, but expect an average of $500–$800 per test.
Uphold and enforce the nonsmoking policy, if applicable. Nonsmoking policies can be enforced with documented building policies, and building signage.
Additional policies to support a nonsmoking building may include providing smokers with alternatives such as outdoor smoking areas, giving employees incentives to quit smoking, and if smoking is permitted in parts of the building, developing a phase-out plan.
Nonsmoking policies can be implemented with homeowners association policies, building signage, and other means of communicating with occupants.
Additional costs from maintaining designated smoking areas within a building may include more frequent and more rigorous cleaning, disposal of ashes and butts, and frequent change-out of ventilation system filters. Light fixtures and finishes may also need to be replaced more frequently in designated smoking areas.
Excerpted from LEED for New Construction and Major Renovations Version 2.2
Minimize exposure of building occupants, indoor surfaces, and ventilation air distribution systems to Environmental Tobacco Smoke (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.).
Prohibit smoking in commercial buildings or effectively control the ventilation air in smoking rooms. For resi- dential buildings, prohibit smoking in common areas, design building envelope and systems to minimize 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. transfer among dwelling units.
This EPA document summarizes environmental tobacco smoke research and provides information on national laws targeting the issue.
This publication from Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights details the legal basis for constructing a smoke-free workplace policy.
This study finds that the percentage of gamblers who smoke is not significantly different from the percentage of the general population who smoke, undermining claims that barring smoking in casinos would have a devastating economic impact.
ANR advocates for non-smokers' interests and provides information for those wishing to prohibit smoking in public places.
This spreadsheet categories dozens of specific space types according to how they should be applied under various IEQ credits. This document is essential if you have questions about how various unique space types should be treated.
Guidelines for proper air sealing techniques.
Provides general background on blower door tests.
Establish and communicate a policy prohibiting smoking within 25 feet of building openings.
Provide a map showing that designated outdoor smoking areas are 25 feet or more from building openings.
Provide drawings, data, and a narrative explaining pressurization and leakage rate testing protocols.
This template is the flattened, public version of the dynamic template for this credit that is used within LEED-Online v2 by registered project teams. This and other public versions of LEED credit templates come from the USGBC website, and are posted on LEEDuser with USGBC's permission. You'll need to fill out the live version of this template on LEED Online to document this credit.
Documentation for this credit can be part of a Design Phase submittal.
Does the blower door testing for a MURB have to be completed prior to occupancy, or can this be done afterwards? Thanks in advance for any information you can share.
If construction workers were allowed to smoke in the building during construction, but only prior to interior finishes being installed, are they allowed to attempt LEED or does this disqualify them?
The scope of the IEQp2 doesn't cover construction activities in that way and so it seems like the project would still be eligible. Even still, it seems like it would be best to prohibit smoking in areas of the building that have been dried-in. Another consideration is that smoking in the building during construction might prohibit the team from earning the construction IAQIndoor air quality: The quality and attributes of indoor air affecting the health and comfort building occupants. IAQ encompasses available fresh air, contaminant levels, acoustics and noise levels, lighting quality, and other factors. credit.
For a multifamily residential project, has LEED provided any detailed guidance on weather-stripping doors to hallways (e.g. the type of product that could be used, do all 4 sides of a door need to be weather-stripped)?
Jon, LEED does not provide information on specific products. I would assume they expect all four sides to be addressed.
We got a clarification request on our EQpr2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke documentation denying our no smoking lease language and referring to 5 bullet points that must be included in a residential lease. We have never seen these 5 bullet points before. They do not exist in the reference manuals for either NC v2.2 or LEED 2009 NC, neither do they appear in any addenda.
This phenomenon is happening more and more, so we queried the reviewers on this comment so that they could cite the source of these requirements and confirm they apply to our project.
This is the answer that we received. "The five bullet points included in the review comment for EQp2 are often required by a review team when a residential (or mixed-use with residential) project pursues Option 1 instead of Option 3. The intent of the requirements is to, in the absence of the tests and requirements of Option 3 to minimize leakage and exposure in the event of smoking within a residential unit, ensure that smoking does not occur in residential units."
I'm making this posting not just because of the frustrating nature of the issue but because of the quality of this answer. "Often required by reviewers" is not an appropriate response to a direct question about where this language appears in credit requirements. Apparently the reviewer is not able to cite the requirement but still seems to feel they can require us to comply. Somehow.
This is a Prerequisite. And we are left unsure how to respond to the clarification comment. Are we actually supposed to go back to our client, the project owner, and tell them they have to spend time and money to amend their residential lease to satisfy requirements that we can't point to as applying to our project or our rating system?
Has anyone else received this comment in absence of the requirement? If so, what response have you used to the reviewer?
This is disturbing to say the least, but not the first time we've heard of similar things happening.
One thing to check: can you tell if the reviewer is the GBCI itself or a contractor with a different company name/email? There have been issues in the past with third-party contracted review teams being less consistent with over-all review practices, which prompted GBCI to move the review responsibilities back to their staff. If that is the case, try contacting GBCI directly, and possibly the USGBC as well.
Keep pushing, and let us know what you hear.
Seems to be GBCI reviewers, not outsourced. The answer is coming from Tanya Mejia at GBCI. We did have some issues with outsourced inexperienced reviewers for a while. Now, however, the situation seems to be worsening as we deal with in-house inexperienced reviewers that seem to have a because we say so mentality. At least the outsourced reviewers seemed to rely on the requirements as we do. I'll post what happens. Thanks.
Michelle -- The reviews are still outsourced and the reviewers go through training, check-ins, QC and feedback. But GBCI staff vet the actual review comments before they go out to the teams. My advice to you would be to use the GBCI "contact" web page, select "questions about review comments," and state your case. I've had similar issues and unless there is a specific printed directive in addenda, errata or LI, you will have a solid basis. I know there have been recent hires at GBCI to try and get consistency in reviews. Best of luck to you.
That's what I already did, explicitly asking for them to cite where the requirement comes from. That's when I got the strange response that "some reviewers are asking for this" as if that was answer. I'm going to go through the process again. I'll post the results.
Thanks for the comment.
Sure....at that point, I would ask to speak to senior staff directly and state that the response is inadequate and confusing. Squeaky wheel!
Hi Michelle - Please accept my apologies on behalf of GBCI for the frustrations you’ve experienced with the review and customer service process for EQp2. Please be assured that our entire team is committed maintaining the integrity of the LEED rating systems by providing high quality reviews and excellent customer service. In this instance we fell short on both fronts, and extend our sincere apologies. We will follow up with you offline regarding the corrections for your project. Also, to both you and other LEED Users, I can reaffirm that LEED Reviewers are directed to assess project submittals only by publically available and accessible documents –Submittal Forms & Templates, Reference Guides, LEED Interpretations, Addenda etc; please continue to use the Contact Us page (http://www.gbci.org/org-nav/contact/Contact-Us/Project-Certification-Que...) to give us feedback on how we’re doing. Thank you for bringing this to our attention – Megan R/S
Thank you so much for this response. I really appreciate your comments, and the fact that you are actually willing to post them. And I would very much appreciate the opportunity to talk to you about it offline. Thanks again.
Are you able to clarify where the 5 bullets referenced in the original post came from and if they will be required for all residential projects pursuing Option 1 going forward?
Hi Nina - The five bullets Michelle referenced were from a specific project’s lease addendum that a Reviewer misappropriated as general guidance for other projects. We have since corrected this problem internally and apologize for the confusion and frustration it has caused LEED users. If you are on project team that inappropriately received this guidance, please feel free to contact me: mrsaffitz (at) gbci.org. The requirements for EQp2 for both v2 and v3 rating systems remain as publically stated going forward. Best, Megan R/S
Our project is a retail one-story building , and will have the policy of smoke free businees. Also, we will follow the 'no smoking withing 25' of building entries and air takes'.
Do we need to have designated areas with signage showing that in the parking lot? Or only signage inside the building- on the glazing- saying 'no smoking whithin 25' of building will be enough?
Maria, if you are prohibiting smoking in the building as a whole, you do not need to designate a smoking area in the parking lot.
I was sorting thru lists of LEED projects and saw the Palazzo in Vegas (8,304,437 sf) earned LEED Silver a couple years ago. They publicly announce that 50% of the gaming space allows smoking. How is this possible. Even after Tom Hicks, VP of USGBC, told them 'no' in a letter. Just adding increased ventilation isn't enough to comply with this Prereq.
I'd love to hear more about this from anyone with a scoop.
I understand the sales tax and property tax reduction in Nevada is a nice carrot for building owners. But come on.
Could they have done it through Option 2 – smoking in designated areas only?
I found a map of the Palazzo. http://www.palazzo.com/assets/pdf/PropertyMap.pdf
I'm guessing the gaming floor space is on the gambling level in the open area labeled "The Palazzo Casino" with all the $ signs scattered around.
People have to walk thru the smoking area to get into the shops and restaurants. I don't see an "impermeable deck-to-deck partition" between this space and the adjacent spaces. And I don't see a wall dividing the space in half to separate smoking from non-smoking.
Even if there was separation, is there any limit in percentage of floor area where smoking is allowed. Can a project be 90% smoking and earn LEED as long as they keep the remaining 10% separate?
Are employee work stations allowed to be in the designated smoking area?
According to the Palazzo's green features web page (http://www.palazzo.com/greenpalazzo.aspx), "all areas of the property are LEED certified with the exception of the casino."
So they apparently skirted the requirement by carving out a portion of the project as 'non-certified'. Hopefully this loophole has been effectively closed for current and future projects through the tighter restrictions on certifying portions of buildings under LEED 2009.
I didn't notice that twist. That's probably how they did it.
It still doesn't seem right to have to walk thru the smoking area to reach the LEED portions of the building. Any bets if they maintain the 25' distance between the slot machine seats and the entrances to the stores and restaurants.
Definitely no bets on that -- "the odds always favor the house"!
If our residential building follows the path of no smoking throughout the building and public areas - what documentation is required to prove that it is complying. Signage? would we need to show the Condo Offering Plan?
Gita, examples of documentation, signs, and the template you have to fill out to document the credit, are all shown under the Doc Toolkit above. I think all of that should provide good guidance for you. Let me know if questions remain?
the documentation toolkit is for commercial buildings. our situation is a residential building, condo, and we want to by-pass having to do 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.. We would like to institute a policy where this is no smoking at all in any of the units private or public. the toolkit does not address this. and I have yet to see a LEED building pass with this type of situation. we will write into the condo plan, and place signage - would this be acceptable to LEED? thanks!
Gita, unfortunately we have not gained any more clarity on your question about bypassing blower door tests since you posted it.
Have you learned more, or have any other LEED users?
Our poject will be restricting smoking to 25 ft from the building. 8 story residential rehad with 1st floor of commercial area. Do we still have to perform 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. ?
Smoking completely prohibited in the building? You're under Option 1, and no 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. (see the credit language above).
where in the language do you see that? thanks
Option 1—see the language posted at the top of this page—doesn't require 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.. Right?
if your talking about the image on birds eye view then i see that it doesnt say you need 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.. but i have been reading some of the previous comments and it looks like its still being required.
I am talking about the official USGBC credit language, posted under the Credit Language tab above, Option 1.
The forum discussion above does indicate some inconsistent application of this language, but I haven't heard further on that, so it's not clear whether that's an isolated case of a bad review, or a policy change. It would probably not be a bad idea to ask your GBCI reviewer for clarification, so that you don't get the prereq rejected at the end of the project. Make sense?
We just received the results of the design review for a mixed-use building (ground floor office; residential on floors 2-9). Smoking is banned in all public spaces but allowed in residential units. We provided drawings to show that rooms were being properly sealed, etc., which the reviewer did not object to.
The prereq was marked 'clarify' - see language below. The reviewer requested that we provide the results of blower door testing. This is the initial design review of a design submittal. We have not done the blower door testing yet as construction is not finished. Is submitting a narrative saying "blower door testing will be completed per XYZ" sufficient as a response to the request for clarification, provided that we include results from the testing during our final Design submittal? My concern is that it is impossible for us to complete the blower door testing within the 25 business days allotted for responding to requests for clarification. Since this is a prerequisite I want to be sure we respond appropriately.
Please provide a detailed narrative or resubmit the Submittal Template to include a detailed narrative describing the methods used and results from the following tests: blower door test conducted in accordance with ANSI/ASTMVoluntary standards development organization which creates source technical standards for materials, products, systems, and services-E779-03, Standard Test Method for Determining Air Leakage RateThe speed at which an appliance loses refrigerant, measured between refrigerant charges or over 12 months, whichever is shorter. The leakage rate is expressed in terms of the percentage of the appliance's full charge that would be lost over a 12-month period if the rate stabilized. (EPA Clean Air Act, Title VI, Rule 608). By Fan Pressurization, and progressive sampling methods as outlined in Chapter 4 of the Residential Manual for Compliance with California’s 2001 Energy Efficiency Standards.
While this prerequisite is typically completed as part of the design phase documentation, the most appropriate course of action would be to defer this prerequisite until the construction phase submittal. Typically, the reviewer responds with this direction, however they left that guidance out in this case. Blower door testing cannot be performed until the late stages of construction, so in these residential scenarios where testing is required, deferring to the construction phase is appropriate. There is check box on the page for each design phase credit that allows you to "defer until construction submittal." When submitting your construction phase submittal, be sure to include the plans as previously provided, the detailed narrative as the reviewer described, as well as the results of the tests.
Hello Good People,
I am trying to clarify the sampling procedure for EQp2 for a LEED-NC mixed use (downstairs retail/upstairs residential) project. The project contains almost 100 residential units in two seperate buildings, one is nine stories, the other is five stories. I'm finding that the documents referenced trail off into nothingness. Bear with me...
The credit language for EQp2 instructs to "Use the progressive sampling methodology defined in Chapter 4 (Compliance Through Quality Construction)...".
Chapter 4 includes, "For multifamily buildings, also see Section 8.1."
Section 8.1 includes, "Multi-family apartment buildings with four or more habitable stories (and hotels or motels of any number of stories) are covered by the nonresidential standards. These are explained in the Nonresidential Manual, which is available from www.energy.ca.gov/title24."
In the Nonresidential Manual the only references I can find air leakage or infiltration have to do with ducts or site-built fenestration. Nothing regarding envelope air leakage testing.
So I've gone down the rabbit-hole and now find myself at a dead end.
So my question is this, what is the appropriate sampling methodology for a 'high-rise' building? Can the methodology prescribed for buildings with four or less stories be used on a five and nine story building?
Thanks in advance for your help.
2001 Residential Manual - http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/archive/2001standards/index.html
2001 Nonresidential Manual
Yes, the methodology prescribed for buildings with four or less stories is the same sampling rates to be used on buildings of 5 or more stories. You would be required to test 1 per every 7 "like" units. It is up to the project team and testing agent to identify the variations in unit types and ultimately how many tests are required, based on the sampling methodology described above. LEED-NC references this manual, so would therefore apply to all residential buildings regardless of size.
Can you post your source? I can find no mention of 1 per every 7 "like" units" in either reference.
I wanted to ask if there would be a problem if I perform a Door Blower Test with a HERS Rater? I believe as long its a Door Blower Test, performed by a professional, the USGBC has no problems accepting to comply with the 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. Pre-req.
Is this correct?
Yes, the 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. has to meet a certain standard, but who does it is not an issue.
Our project has residential/commercial on first level; residential units on levels two and three. Smoking is prohibited on the entire property. Because we are under Option 3, are we required to do air leakage tests? If so, do we only have to test one 1 per 7 residential units or on entire building, including commercial?
In the past, we've had residential projects with no smoking policies approved without doing blower door testing. However, because the rating system language has changed slightly for 2009 it would probably be a good idea to get in touch with your project's assigned certifying body or submit a CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide to see if the no smoking policy will still work.
If you are required to do the testing, it would only be for the residential units and the sampling methodology of 1 per 7 like residential units would apply.
Thanks, Ben. Our challenge seems to be that it is mixed use. It is a 2.2 project, no smoking anywhere, yet reviewer denied prerequisite on final review saying we had to do blower door tests but did not say on why or on what. I never heard of having to do blower door tests when no smoking is allowed on the property. Ideas?
So at this point you've had the preliminary and final review? Also, was that during the design, construction, or combined review? In any case I'm surprised by the result but it sounds like they're requiring the team to do blower door testing of the residential units according to the typical methodology for residential projects. You do not have to do any sort of testing for the non-residential spaces.
We are certifying two buildings in Boston to be occupied by the State. The state has a No Smoking Policy on all properties. We know that we will have to determine how to convey this policy to the building users and visitors. In the end, no smoking will be allowed in the building or anywhere on the property.
The issue we're having is understanding how USGBC/GBCI views urban areas where 25' from entries, windows, and intakes in most directions puts you on a neighboring property or in the street. Intakes and windows aren't really an issue due to the building design but our entries could be.
Your posting over on the 2009 version of this credit just got an answer from Keith at YRG, as follows:
By prohibiting smoking on the entire property, you are in compliance with the credit requirements, regardless of whether or not an adjacent property is within 25' of a building opening. You do not have control of what happens on another property and therefore cannot be penalized for it, hence why the credit language specifies prohibiting "on-property" smoking within 25 feet.
Projects that have interior designated smoking areas will need to provide additional ventilation to these areas, as with other spaces.
LEEDuser is produced by BuildingGreen, Inc., with YR&G authoring most of the original content. LEEDuser enjoys ongoing collaboration with USGBC. Read more about our team
Copyright 2013 – BuildingGreen, Inc.