| About This Archive | | DCHAS-L 2014 Index | | DCHAS-L Yearly Index | |
Check out Safety Emporium for your N95, N99, and face shield needs.
|
Previous by Date: Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Open plan research buildings Date: Monday, February 24, 2014 8:11:08 AM Author: Dan Kuespert <dkuespert**At_Symbol_Here**JHU.EDU> |
Next by Date: Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Contingency Plan for Labs Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 18:18:41 +0000 Author: Naomi Kelly |
I can only tell you how I do it with an example from a simpler situation. In the planning report for a new building, I work with the faculty's list of requirements. In one of these, each of 5 departments wanted either a full or partial wood shop as part of their department. I listed every machine they wanted in the five shops and estimated the cfm it would take to exhaust each of them as compared to a single centrally located woodshop with a couple of additional machines that would improve three of the programs. Then it's simple to compare the cost of the replacement treated air for the 5 as compared against the one. The total difference in cost is found by adding up the cost of the exterior wood dust collectors as against one, the heating/cooling costs for the replacement air, and the extra tonnage of AC equipment on the roof.
But I also have the added argument that those teachers in the 5 different media areas can't be watching those students doing woodworking as they should while others in the class are painting, metal working, etc. So one technician who is actually qualified to train people on the machines, maintain the machines, and respond to emergencies can take over this job and make the school vastly safer.
Then you throw in a little of the LEED energy saving crap to clinch it..
So if you can find out how much replacement air is being generating now in the existing facility v. how much cfm would be needed with the proposed design, and throw in the cost of any additional equipment needed to provide it, that sounds like it should do it. In those buildings that currently don't provide proper ventilation and have low replacement air costs as a result, find the applicable standards and start with the estimate of what the cfm SHOULD be if the building as it is configured.
I use the ACGIH standards rather than ASHRAE since ASHRAE 62 refers to ACGIH and other standards for control of Class 4 air (air contaminated with potentially toxic amounts of contaminants). I usually have trouble getting the engineers to design to these standards since most are HVAC guys and have never even seen the ACGIH manual of recommended practice. I do not agree with a number of the current ASHRAE standards including those for fume hoods as compared to those of ACGIH.. But that's another story.
Monona Rossol, M.S., M.F.A., Industrial Hygienist
President: Arts, Crafts & Theater Safety, Inc.
Safety Officer: Local USA829, IATSE
181 Thompson St., #23
New York, NY 10012 212-777-0062
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Kuespert <dkuespert**At_Symbol_Here**JHU.EDU>
To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Sent: Mon, Feb 24, 2014 8:24 am
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Open plan research buildings
I was on the same tour. One thing I would point out is that the reconfigurability seems to come, in part, from provision for LOTS of ventilation zones-which will be expensive from the standpoint of design, capital/installation costs for the controls, and
operating expenses. (Cornell ends up saving money on the operating side by optimizing the ventilation, but that's another story.) The upfront cost is something that many administrators faced with "value engineering" a building may not be willing to expend.
Penny-wise and pound-foolish, but true.
Which raises the issue of how to make the case for "safer" design choices in building construction to the administration. I=E2=80™m sure all large facilities, academic or otherwise, have buildings whose designs are less than optimal. Such buildings are typically
not "unsafe," per se, but they're more difficult and expensive in which to apply appropriate engineering controls than they would be had certain decisions been made another way during design/construction. (Example being a building whose ventilation system
is so Byzantine that it nearly requires a complete redesign each time someone wants to add or move a chemical fume hood.) Anyone have useful input on how best to make these sorts of arguments? (Money always works well, but sometimes it's difficult to "monetize"
safety benefits.)
Regards,
Dan
--
Daniel R. Kuespert, Ph.D.
Homewood Laboratory Safety Advocate
Krieger School of Arts & Sciences/G.W.C. Whiting School of Engineering
The Johns Hopkins University
Shaffer Hall 103G
3400 N. Charles St.
Baltimore, MD 21218
(410) 516-5525
On 2/21/14, 3:57 PM, "ILPI Support" <info**At_Symbol_Here**ILPI.COM> wrote:
I was at Cornell U in Ithaca, NY last week, and we had a nice tour of Weill Hall thanks to Ralph Stuart and his crew. It's a ~260,000 sf LEED Gold building and it features (among many other innovations and goodies), a wing that is divided down the middle
with offices and collaboration spaces on one side and separately ventilated labs on the other side of the main hallway. So, one aspect is whether the lounges etc. work for inspiring collaboration. Have to ask the occupants.
A second aspect is the lab side. Among all the many well-thought designs is one in which the lab space is completely reconfigurable. The lab benches are modular) and can change heights) and the storage drawers etc. are on casters. Gas, water and electric
is provided by quick connects from the ceilings down to the bench top risers. One could completely change around 1,000 sf of lab space in an afternoon, with the only tweak needed being a quick check on the ventilation controls. Stunning. If you have new
faculty come in, the setup is quick and easy, or if two groups want to move equipment to work more closely, it's easy to do.
Ralph can provide more info/pics/whatever if anyone's interested, obviously. But, again, the real question is whether the *occupants* find that the reconfigurable/open spaces work as intended. I can pretty much guess the answer, but it would be nice
to hear from the folks that work there firsthand.
Rob Toreki
======================================================
Safety Emporium - Lab & Safety Supplies featuring brand names
you know and trust. Visit us at http://www.SafetyEmporium.com
esales**At_Symbol_Here**safetyemporium.com or toll-free: (866) 326-5412
Fax: (856) 553-6154, PO Box 1003, Blackwood, NJ 08012
On Feb 21, 2014, at 3:23 PM, Monona Rossol <actsnyc**At_Symbol_Here**cs.com> wrote:
This is the same crap I hear from some college administrators who think they have a brilliant concept for planning a new art building. The ventilation systems, emergency equipment,
level of fire safety, and a flock of other precautions vary from media to media making them incompatible. For one, OSHA requires 35 feet between welding (and other spark-producing work) and combustibles or flammables such as solvents, wood dust, plastic,
paper, etc.
It's easiest for me to make the case to administrators by looking at the just the ventilation. The general ventilation standards and their rates vary for wood dust, welding
fume, ceramic clay dust, acid gases created during etching, solvent vapors for plate and brush cleaning, etc. This just plain precludes all this airborne junk from being generated in the same open space.
So I can tell you if science students or researchers work out on the benches without good local capture, this open concept won't work. But you people like to stick your nasties inside a chemistry fume hood. And if you do this consistently enough, you
may not even need a dilution system with a specific rate for the room.. But I'll be there are fire, chemical storage, incompatible activities and other issues I haven't thought of.
So I will be VERY interested in the objections you come up with other than noise and stress--two conditions that I personally embrace in my own life.
Monona Rossol, M.S., M.F.A., Industrial Hygienist
President: Arts, Crafts & Theater Safety, Inc.
Safety Officer: Local USA829, IATSE
181 Thompson St., #23
New York, NY 10012 212-777-0062
-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph B. Stuart <rstuart**At_Symbol_Here**CORNELL.EDU>
To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Sent: Fri, Feb 21, 2014 7:30 am
Subject: [DCHAS-L] Open plan research buildings
I noticed while scanning this morning's C&EN headlines this notice:
Are you in favor of the trend for open plan research buildings? Do they make for
more collaboration and better science? Or are they noisy, distracting and
stressful places to work? At C&EN we'd like to hear your opinion for an upcoming
article. If you would like to participate please email Senior Editor Alex Scott
at a_scott**At_Symbol_Here**acs.org.
I thought that DCHAS members might have some interesting thoughts on the matter
and want to contact Alex...
- Ralph
Ralph Stuart CIH
Chemical Hygiene Officer
Department of Environmental Health and Safety
Cornell University
rstuart**At_Symbol_Here**cornell.edu
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post