See all forum discussions about NC-2009 IEQc6.1
 Subscribe to new posts about NC-2009 IEQc6.1 Post a new question aboutNC-2009 IEQc6.1
See LEEDuser’s guidance on NC-2009 IEQc6.1»
FAQs about IEQc6.1 :

How much controllability do I need for my multi-occupant space?

I included occupancy sensors to meet the controls requirement but my LEED reviewer indicated that they weren’t sufficient. Why is this?

In order to help meet IEQc6.1 for my individual occupants I am including task lighting. Does my task lighting need to be hard wired?

View answers »

Forum discussion

NC-2009 IEQc6.1:Controllability of Systems—Lighting

Juvenile Detention Center - Lighting Control

Hello all - We are working on a juvenile detention center and are trying to find a way to comply with EQc6.2. The project is attempting certification under v4 and I will post a comment in that forum, but I thought it might be helpful to post here as well. v4 requires not only lighting controls but also that they be multi-level (on/off/mid). We are wondering if instead of installing controls in the cell (for safety reasons), the inmates are provided with the option of requesting lighting change from the guard. The guard would have a control panel and be able to adjust the lighting to multiple levels. I know some credits just aren't applicable to all projects but I'm wondering if anyone has an opinion or experience with this sort of situation. Thanks!

0
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  »

Thu, 03/06/2014 - 20:22

Hi Michelle, Your approach seems reasonable but should probably include a guarantee that the guards have capacity to deal with the lighting changes and the occupants will feel empowered to use this option.
Profile picture for user skippyjones
Deborah Lucking
Director of Sustainability
Fentress Architects
LEEDuser Expert
224 thumbs up

Tue, 05/06/2014 - 23:29

All, We too have a project with a detention/holding cell component. I'm picking up on the Laura Sparandara's Oct 31 2013 response (different context, but nonetheless...)Text from the "Notes and Definitions" tab of the IEQ Space Matrix: http://www.usgbc.org/resources/eq-space-type-matrix "Regularly occupied spaces are areas where one or more individuals normally spend time (more than one hour per person per day on average) seated or standing as they work, study, or perform other focused activities inside a building...." We would point out that detainees are not engaged in any kind of "work, study or...other focused activities", so these spaces would not be considered "regularly occupied". Is there a flaw in this argument?

Wed, 05/07/2014 - 03:29

I actually would argue that detainees are absolutely engaged in some kind of work, study, or other focused activities and that it is very important that they have access to control in one form or another. If the way that you're arguing that they have access to controls is through requesting access through the guards then I would make sure that there truly is a mechanism and a freedom for an inmate to make this adjustment request.

Add new comment

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