See all forum discussions about EBOM-2009 MRc4

Subscribe to new posts about EBOM-2009 MRc4 Post a new question aboutEBOM-2009 MRc4

See LEEDuser’s guidance on EBOM-2009 MRc4»

FAQs about MRc4 :

There are no mercury-containing lamps installed in the project building. Can we upload a signed statement from our property manager instead of completing the credit form and documentation?

A large multi-tenant project does not have a uniform lighting standard, therefore there are a number of different types of lamps are installed on the project. How should we go about documenting this credit?

Do we need to provide a purchasing plan if the lamp inventory of currently installed lamps shows that the average mercury content is already below 90 picograms per lumen-hour?

Do lamps for task lighting need to be included in the purchasing plan?

Do mercury-free lamps need to be included in Table MRc4-1 Lamp Purchasing Plan and Table MRc4-2 Performance Period Lamp Purchasing?

All of the outdoor fixtures in the project building are mercury-free. Can we exclude all outdoor fixtures from the purchasing plan?

The project building is a large multi-tenant building and tenants are responsible for their own lamp purchases. Can lamps in tenant spaces be excluded?

How do you know if a lamp meets the NEMA guidelines, and can therefore be excluded?

The project building includes a significant amount of process lighting (i.e. sports arena lighting or studio lighting). Do these lamps need to be included?

View answers »

Forum discussion

EBOM-2009 MRc4:Sustainable Purchasing—Reduced Mercury in Lamps

Worst Case Scenario

AtSite Inc

AtSite

LEEDuser Basic Member

1 thumbs up

June 10, 2014

I have scoured the internet for HG content of a few of the CFLs we have in our building with no luck. Let's say I can't find HG content and thus cannot know whether the CFLs meet NEMA guidelines. Can I include them and assume the worst-case scenario for their mercury content of 6 mg (according to the table above)? We are still well above the 90 picogram target (38 as a building)

Post a reply

Susan Walter

HDR

LEEDuser Expert

894 thumbs up

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 12:39

That is likely what I would and write a narrative. I have no idea if this would be accepted by a reviewer but it seems the conservative path. Have you tried calling the company? Ask to speak to a VP of technical sales. That person won't know but they will get the message that they aren't servicing the marketplace. You may even get a real answer.

AtSite Inc

AtSite

LEEDuser Basic Member

1 thumbs up

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 13:45

Thanks I'll give it a try and see what happens. Will post back with the outcome of the review.

Add new comment

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