We have used the low-mercury lamps credit on numerous v3 projects with no problems, even since they lowered the threshold from 90 picograms to 35; the majority of our projects now use either all LED, or pretty close to it.
With the Innovation Catalog guidance for this credit now being cited as the go-by for documentation, I am wondering what exactly they're wanting to see for documentation. They provide the calculator under the "Resources" tab (of course, you have to know to look there, b/c they don't tell you), but don't give instructions as to what is expected when using it as an ID strategy.
Further, if a project is entirely LED, there are issues with the way the credit language is phrased and is not clear on what info will be expected. LED items are not referred to as "lamps", and they have 0 mercury content.
In older efforts with LEDs, we were expected to still fill out the table (which previously came from the EBOM template), with product info, even though the items are not considered "lamps". The weblink also still says "Lamps containing no mercury may be counted only if their energy efficiency at least equals that of their mercury-containing counterparts." Previously, we were expected to spend a fair amount of time finding product info for comparison items that are not part of the project solely for this credit; this proved to be very time-consuming, moreso for larger, more complex projects. I have seen discussion within LEEDUser that this may no longer be required, and yet it's still contained in the requirements...they just don't tell you if you still have to go through that process or not.
Anyway, does anyone know exactly what they're expecting to see for this credit submission for projects that utilize all or mostly LED?
I ask about the "lamp" portion only because on one project in particular, our lighting consultant is pushing back heaving on having to do any documentation at all since it is entirely LED, there are technically no "lamps" in the project, and their mercury content is inherently 0. He feels we should just be able to state this and provide the drawings/lighting schedule and be done with it.
(edited to say I'll post this on the v3 NC ID page, too, since that one has a lot more traffic and could use this clarity as well.)
Joanna Switzer
Sustainability Project ManagerAtkins
59 thumbs up
August 2, 2017 - 10:16 am
Hi Emily,
I haven't undergone formal submittal yet, but planned to use the prior spreadsheet (EBOM dictated) that you mentioned. Agreed, its mostly a formality so perhaps worth trying to submit with just lighting submittal cutsheets to document the actual fixtures being installed (including any task lights) along with an explanatory submittal memo outlining the rationale & perhaps a sample calculation for one fixture to illustrate the 0 pg/lh mercury content logic. If all fixtures, or 90%+ of them at least, are LED then this approach MIGHT satisfy the LEED review process without more detailed supporting calcs being warranted.....worth a try!
As for comparative fixtures, I have never submitted supporting data for this, nor been flagged for it. I think a LEED reviewer would only flag this as an issue if incandescent/halogen fixtures were included in the project and claimed in the calculations as contributing to the project's low mercury performance.
Basically, as I understand the technical requirements, "older/less efficient" non-mercury lamps such as incandescent should be disclosed in the documentation for clarity/transparency, but excluded from lumen/life/etc data entry in the pg/lh calcs.
Joyce Kelly
Architect - Cx Provider - Green Building SpecialistGLHN Architects & Engineers
27 thumbs up
October 15, 2017 - 3:53 pm
Now that the majority of LEDs are over 100 lumens/watt, this has become a moot point and no Reviewer has asked me to submit comps. Nevertheless, my table, not derived from EBOM after a Reviewer advised against it, does include a column of efficacy numbers for all "lamps".
Brian Salazar
President, LEED AP, WELL APEntegra Development & Investment, LLC
56 thumbs up
February 21, 2018 - 9:29 pm
I use the lighting cut sheets to determine the total lumens, 25,000 hours as the typical rated life, and 0 for mercury. The product is always "0" on the form, but at least the backup is there to justify it. My last project used this method and came back OK by the reviewer, awarding the point. However, we did have two decorative fixtures that used CFLs.
Does anyone know if you still need to have at least one Hg containing bulb in the project?
Joanna Switzer
Sustainability Project ManagerAtkins
59 thumbs up
February 22, 2018 - 9:24 am
Hi Brian,
Good feedback. I believe I've had at least one 100% LED lighting project to date with this credit awarded (i.e. no hg containing lamp in scope). I would hope mercury elimination would be considered exemplary as compared to just mercury reduction in accordance with the credit's intent. I would imagine if an unlikely question was raised by a LEED reviewer for such a technicality that it could be readily resolved with a written response outlining the logic/benefit of NO mercury.
emily reese moody
Sustainability Director, Certifications & ComplianceJacobs
LEEDuser Expert
476 thumbs up
February 22, 2018 - 12:45 pm
Hello,
I responded to Brian's similar question posted on the NC v3 ID forum page, and will include here for reference, too.
Yes, it's been fine for my all-LED projects to earn this credit.
For NC v4, you should follow the criteria in the innovation catalog, located here: https://www.usgbc.org/credits/new-construction/v4/innovation-catalog
Brian Salazar
President, LEED AP, WELL APEntegra Development & Investment, LLC
56 thumbs up
February 22, 2018 - 12:46 pm
Thanks. I know I repeated the question, but in a Google search, it's sometimes helpful to have the answer in multiple places. Thanks again.