See all forum discussions about EBOM-2009 IEQp2
 Subscribe to new posts about EBOM-2009 IEQp2 Post a new question aboutEBOM-2009 IEQp2
See LEEDuser’s guidance on EBOM-2009 IEQp2»
FAQs about IEQp2 :

Our outside smoking area is located less than 25 feet from an emergency exit. Is this okay since that door is rarely (if ever) used?

View answers »

Forum discussion

EBOM-2009 IEQp2:Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control

Definition of Entrances

My question is whether an inoperative door qualifies as an entry, and thus needs a 7.5 m buffer area. My project site holds large events and needs to create a temporary fenced smoking area to accomodate large amounts of people for a short amounts of time (one evening a month for example). Does a smoking area need to be 7.5 from an entry if the door is locked and no one can enter or exit this door? Doing this seems to be the only way to satisfy this prerequisite, and hoards of people needing a smoke...

3
Post a reply

You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?

LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.

Go premium for $15.95  »

Profile picture for user danackerstein
Dan Ackerstein
Principal
Ackerstein Sustainability, LLC
LEEDuser Expert
545 thumbs up

Wed, 05/11/2011 - 16:45

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.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 16:16

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.
Profile picture for user tristanroberts
Tristan Roberts
Representative
Vermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
7780 thumbs up

Wed, 05/25/2011 - 03:49

Emma, how airtight are these doors? That would make me a bit nervous—most doors would not be airtight enough.
Profile picture for user danackerstein
Dan Ackerstein
Principal
Ackerstein Sustainability, LLC
LEEDuser Expert
545 thumbs up

Wed, 05/25/2011 - 14:05

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

Fri, 05/27/2011 - 17:23

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.

Add new comment

To post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.