wooliams presentation

7/29/2019 Wooliams Presentation

1/46

Jessica Woolliams, Coordinator

Longwood Green Campus InitiativeHarvard Universityemail: [email protected]

The Case ForSustainable Laboratories:

First Steps at Harvard University

www.greencampus.harvard.edu/


2/46

Sustainable Laboratories:First Steps at Harvard University

z ONE: The Case forSustainable Laboratories

z TWO: Initial Efforts at Harvardz THREE: Lab21 Questionnaire


3/46

ONE: Case For Sustainable Labs

First: Climate change is here

There is no doubt the composition of the atmosphere ischanging because of human activities, and today greenhousegases are the largest human influence on global climate.(NSF 2003)

Second: Our labs are big contributors:

fume hoods are a major factor in making a typical laboratory

four- to five-times more energy intensive than typicalcommercial buildings. A typical hood consumes 3.5-timesmore energy than an average house. (Bell, G., D. Sartor, andE. Mills 2003)


4/46

ONE: Case For Sustainable Labs

z Third: The benefits of this transitionare enormous

z Recent studies show that minimal

increases in upfront costs (2%)result in savings of 20% of totalconstruction costs

z Example: an initial investment of

$100,000 to incorporate greenfeatures into a $5 million projectwould result in savings of $1 millionin todays dollars over the life of the

building


5/46

TWO: Initial Efforts at Harvard

Why are Universities Critical?

z 4,096 U.S. Colleges and Universities1

z 14.8 million students1

z $277 billion annual expenditures; 2.8% of the GDP1

z Higher education expenditures greater than the GDP of all but 25

countries in the world2

1 From: 2001 Digest of Education Statistics, US Dept. of Education.2 From: 2001 CIA World Factbook and Dowling, Mike., "Interactive Table of World Nations," available from

http://www.mrdowling.com/800nations.html; Internet; updated Friday, June 29, 2001


6/46


2,886 Capital Projects Completed,

2000

944

374

1568

New Buildings Additions Modernization

Source: American School and Universitys Official Education Construction Report, 2000.



7/46


$14.7 B Spent on Construction, 2000

52%

6%

42%

New Buildings Additions Modernization

Source: American School and Universitys Official Education Construction Report, 2000.



8/46


Technical Background on University Labs

Laboratory Types at Harvard

z Chemistry

z Biochemistry

z Biological

z Biomedicalz Physics

z Geology

z Behavioral research


9/46


Laboratory Environments May ContainzHundreds or thousands ofchemicals

zFlammable GaseszCompressed Gases

zToxic Gases

zFlammable LiquidszBiological Agents

zRadioactive materials

zFume HoodszBiosafety Cabinets

zCentrifuges

zAutoclaves

zVacuum SystemszResearch Animals

zLasers

zSophisticated ElectricalEquipment

zHazardous waste

zInfected animalsz???


10/46


Types of Fume Hoods

z Constant Volume Fume Hoods

Conventional Constant Volume Fume Hood

Constant Volume Bypass Fume Hood

Auxiliary Air or Make-Up Fume Hoods

Low Flow Fume Hood

z Variable Volume Fume Hoods


11/46


Energy Use Totals FY 2001 in MMBtus

Longwood Medical

Campus

29%

Cambridge / Allston

71%


12/46


Square Footage

Cambridge / Allston85%

Longwood Medical

Campus

15%

lab-intensivecampus: 2.4 timesthe energy use per

square foot


13/46


Feasibility Study with Labs 21z 68,000 sq ft: 52% Lab

z 6 floors + basementz 26 fume hoods

z Built in 1969

$-

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

Chlld H2O Elec Steam water

Utility Use FY 2002: $479,570


14/46

Upgrade and Reduce Energy

z Constant Volume with Heat Recovery: $20,000/yr savings, 4.8 year payback

z Constant Volume with Usage Based Control:$18,500 /yr, 2.9 yr payback

z Constant Volume with Usage Based Controland Heat Recovery: $32,000 /yr, 4.7 yr pb

z

Variable Air Volume: $33,500/yr, 3.3 yr pbz Variable Air Volume with Heat Recovery:

$48,000/yr, 4.25 yr pb

z Constant Volume with Low Flow Fume Hoods:$28,072, 7.85 yr pb


15/46

Upgrade and Reduce Energy

z Constant Volume with Heat Recovery: $20,000/yr savings, 4.8 year payback

z Constant Volume with Usage Based Control:$18,500 /yr, 2.9 yr payback

z Constant Volume with Usage Based Controland Heat Recovery: $32,000 /yr, 4.7 yr pb

z

Variable Air Volume: $33,500/yr, 3.3 yr pbz Variable Air Volume with Heat Recovery:

$48,000/yr, 4.25 yr pb: 10% reduction in energy use

z Constant Volume with Low Flow Fume Hoods:$28,072, 7.85 yr pb


16/46

Important Discoveries

z Range of cost-effective opps identified: Heat recovery, greater controls, VAV, low flow

hoods, night set-backs.

z Unknown performance faculty change-over, systemic lack of

communication between faculty/researchers and

facility managers, lack of ongoing buildingventilation performance reviews

z Current codes and standards labyrinthine


17/46

Design Dilemma: Whos Stds to Follow?

Organizations with Recommendations for AirChanges per Hour (ACH):

z ASHRAE Applications Handbook

z NFPA 45, National Fire Protection Association

z OSHA 29 CFR-1910, Occupational Safety &Health Administration, US Dept of Labor

z Prudent Practices, National Research Council

z Industrial Ventilation, American Conference ofGovernmental Industrial Hygienists

z ANSI / AIHA Z9.5-2003, American National

Standards Institute, American Industrial HygieneAssn


18/46

Design Standards: ACH

ANSI / AIHA Z9.5-2003, AmericanNational Standards Institute, American

Industrial Hygiene Assn:air changes per hour is not the

appropriate concept for designingcontaminant control systems.Contaminants should be controlled atthe source.


19/46

Design Standards: ACH

ANSI / AIHA Z9.5-2003, AmericanNational Standards Institute, American

Industrial Hygiene Assn:air changes per hour is not the

appropriate concept for designingcontaminant control systems.Contaminants should be controlled atthe source.


20/46

Design Standards: Face Velocity

Organization Citation FaceVelocity

ACGIH Industrial Ventilation, 19th ed. p.5.24 60-100 fpmASHRAE 1999 ASHRAE Handbook

13.560-1751

ANSI/AIHA ANSI/AIHA Z9.5Sect 5.7

80-120 fpm

CALOSHA CCR Title VIIISubchapter 7.5454.1

100 fpm2

NRC Prudent Practicesp.187

80-100 fpm

NFPA NFPA 456-4.5 & A6-4.5

80-120 fpm3

NIOSH Recommended IndustrialVentilation Guidelines p.166 100-150 fpm

NRC NRC Guide 6.3 100 fpm4OSHA 29 CFR 1910

Appendix A Sec. A.C.4.g60-100 fpm

SEFA SEFA 1.2:5.2 75-100 fpm

[1] 20%-50% of exterior disturbance velocities. 60-175 fpm if 300 fpm walk-by used to calculate.[2] Minimum[3] "Sufficient to prevent escape from hood; 80-120 fpm; 40 cfm/lin foot min"[4] For hospital radioactives


21/46

Fume Hood Containment Test Standards

we can ask, does it make any differencewhich of the several standard protocols isfollowed? My answer is no, inasmuch as none

can define what the operational risks will be inservice.

Dr. Melvin First, Harvard School of Public Health


22/46

Fume Hood Containment Test Standards

we can ask, does it make any differencewhich of the several standard protocols isfollowed? My answer is no, inasmuch as none

can define what the operational risks will be inservice.

Dr. Melvin First, Harvard School of Public Health


23/46

Best Practices: LEED

Labs 21 develop Environmental Performance Criteria,and among the strategies:

z Use high performance low-flow fume hoods.

z Minimize outside air to 1 cubic foot per minute persquare foot (cfm/sf) or less.

z Reduce unoccupied outside airflow during

unoccupied periods.


24/46

Best Practices: LEED

Labs 21 develop Environmental Performance Criteria,and among the strategies:

z Use high performance low-flow fume hoods.

z Minimize outside air to 1 cubic foot per minute persquare foot (cfm/sf) or less.

z Reduce unoccupied outside airflow during

unoccupied periods.

We need to define the operational risks

Need for research


25/46

Research on Codes, Standards, &

Energy Efficiency in Laboratories

z Labs 21: internship position

z Student intern research:

national survey of architects, engineers and facilitymanagers

Labs 21 group identified a national need:

understanding how codes and standards impactenergy efficiency


26/46

Advisory Group

Chris BenjaminEnvironmental Analyst

Eastern Research GroupLabs21 Media Outlet

Itzhak Maor, Ph.D., P.E.Director of Engineering

PWI Energy

Paul Mathew, Ph.DEnergy Engineer

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Geoffrey C. Bell

Energy EngineerLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Labs 21Phil Wirdzek

Environmental Protection Agency

Matt Lloyd, InternHGCI

Jessica WoolliamsMedical Area Coordinator

HGCI

Leith Sharp, DirectorHGCI

Danny Beaudoin

Manager of OperationsHarvard School of Public Health

Harvard Green Campus InitiativeDr. John Spengler, Co-Chair

University of Massachusetts AmherstGreening Campus Rep

Northeastern UniversityEH&S Director

Tufts UniversityEH&S, Facilities

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

EH&S DirectorFacilities and Engineering

University Steering GroupDr. John SpenglerHarvard UniversityFaculty, Facilities


27/46

The Questionnaire: Intent

Three questions:

1) In what ways do current codes and standards

either hinder or help energy efficient laboratory

design?

2) Do current codes and standards fail to provide

enough guidance on the issues of health and

safety, energy efficiency, and the relationship

between the two?

3) What is the scope and magnitude of the problem?


28/46

Matt Lloyd, AEALongwood Green Campus

InitiativeHarvard School of Public HealthBoston, MA 02215email: [email protected]

Understanding the RelationshipBetween Codes, Standards, and

Energy Efficiency in Laboratories

www.epa.gov/labs21century www.greencampus.harvard.edu/


29/46

The Questionnaire

z Identifying the Target Audience:

1) Labs21 case study design team members (n=6)

2) A pool of A&E participants with laboratory designexperience (n=19)

3) Facilities Managers (n=6)

Nearly 4 centuries of experience with energyefficiency!!!


30/46

The Questionnaire: Intent

z An exploratory effort to identify contradictionsand/or issues within the framework of thecurrent codes and standards for laboratory

ventilation and energy efficiency.

z Over a 90% response rate to questionnaire


31/46

Applicability of Energy Codes/Standards

C o d e s / S t a n d a r d s

do no t o f fe rade quate gu idanc e

5 6 %

C o d e s / S t a n d a r d so f fe r ade quate

guidance

4 4 %

z Do you feel that these codes and standards offer

adequate guidance for designing energy efficientlabs?

Total (all groups):

n=25


32/46

Applicability of Energy Codes/Standards

z For those that answered No, what are the issues:

Codes not designed to address labs Inadequate methodology for determining air flow /

safety requirements

Inconsistent standards for lab ventilation Different lab types deserve consideration

Fan energy limits/ restrictive heat recovery

in ASHRAE 90.1 Codes do not address lab design holistically Safety and use of chemical fume hoods


33/46

Applicability of Energy Standards:

ASHRAE 90.1

z Using the ECB method for lab compliance:

Case Studies group: 83% used ECB

A&E group: 21% used ECB

zExperience with ECB:

Labor intensive calculations Better suited for commercial buildings


34/46

L21 Environmental Performance Criteria

Technologies and Strategies:

z Use of low-flow fume hoods

z Use of VAV fume hoods

z Energy (latent or sensible)

recoveryz Use of computer simulations to

ID effective efficiency measures

z Quantification of energy

performance as compared to abaseline bldg.

z Expansion of unoccupiedtemperature dead band byresetting zone temperature

based on occupancy

z Incorporating diversity intodesign

z Cooling system with at least 2

cooling loops (different temps.)z Design for high part-load heating

and cooling efficiency

z Reduction of outside airflowduring unoccupied periods

z In mixed lab settings, usededicated HVAC for admin.

Areas


35/46


Technologies and strategies Labs21 case

study design team members employed:

Less often:z Use of low flow fume hoods

z Expansion of temperature deadbands based on occupancy

z Cooling system with at least 2cooling loops (different temps.)

More often:z Incorporating diversity into design

z Use of VAV fume hoodsz Energy recovery (latent or sensible)

z Reduction of outside airflow

z Design for high part-load heating

and cooling efficiencyz Dedicated HVAC for admin. areas

in mixed lab settings

z Quantification of energyperformance as compared to a

baseline bldg.z Use of computer simulations to ID

effective efficiency measures


36/46


Technologies and strategies general A&E

group employed:Less often:z Use of low flow fume hoods

z Expansion of temperature dead

bands based on occupancyz Cooling system with at least 2

cooling loops (different temps.)

z Energy recovery (latent or sensible)

z Design for high part-load heatingand cooling efficiency

z Quantification of energyperformance as compared to abaseline bldg.

z Use of computer simulations to IDeffective efficiency measures

More often:z Incorporating diversity into design

z

Use of VAV fume hoodsz Reduction of outside airflow

z Dedicated HVAC for admin. areasin mixed lab settings


37/46

General Lab Ventilation

z If your firm use ACH to calculate ventilation rates, what

code(s) / standard(s) do you reference in setting airchange rate?

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Handbo

ok

NFPA

OSHA

NR

C

CR

C

Local/

statecod

es

AIA

Other

Codes / Standards

Percentage

Facility Mgrs. (n=5)

Case Studies (n=6)

A&E (n=14)

Total


38/46

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Facilities Managers (n=6) Cas e Studies (n=6) A&E (n=18) To tal (n=30)

S urve y Gro up

Facilities Managers (n=6)

Cas e S tudies (n=6)

A&E (n=18)

To tal (n=30)

z In your opinion, are the standards from part b

adequate to ensure the long-term safety of laboratoryoccupants?



39/46

1 2 3 4 5

Median Interest Level (Scale of 1-5)

All groups (n=30)

A&E (n=18)

Case Studies (n=6)

Facilities Managers

(n=6)Facilities Managers (n=6)

Case Studies (n=6)

A&E (n=18)

All groups (n=30)

z On scale of one to five, indicate your interest in additional

research quantifying the correlation between laboratoryventilation and human health risks.



40/46

Laboratory Air Distribution and Diffusion

All groups (n=30)

A&E (n=18)

Case Studies (n=6)

Facilities Managers (n=6)

z Do you believe the location of the fume hoods in relation to air supply

diffusers and pedestrian traffic is for human health andsafety than the number of air changes per hour in a laboratory?

Lessimportan

t

Equallyimpo

rtant

Moreimportan

t


41/46

Laboratory Air Distribution and Diffusion

z Do you utilize CFD as a

computational tool forpredicting lab airdistribution?

40%General A&Eaudience

60%Case Studies

Use CFD as a

computational

tool:Survey

group:

z On scale of one to five (1=lowest,5=highest), rate the usefulness ofCFD for the design of safe andenergy efficient laboratories.

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Median Value of Usefulness (Scale of 1-5)

Case Studies

(n=6)

A&E (n=18)


42/46

Fume Hoodsz What specific codes and standards do you reference to select face

velocitythat you use as your criteria for fume hoods?

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Z 9.5 CALOSHA SEFA OSHA NFPA 45 NRC Other

Codes / Standards Referenced

Percentage

Facility Mgrs. (n=6)

Case Studies (n=6)

A&E (n=17)

Total


43/46

Testingz Estimate the percentage of clients that your firm provides

building commissioning for beyond traditional TAB protocol?

0-24%(Infrequently) 25-49%

(Lessthanhalf

thetime)

50-74%

(Majorityofthe

time)

75-100%

(Almostalways

)

Case Studies

A&E0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Perce

ntageofSurveyGro

ups

Percentage Range of Clients Commissioned


44/46

Operationz What are one or two common problems you have

seen emerge over the operating lifetime of labs thatlead to reduced performance?

1. Poor preventative maintenance

2. System upgrades

3. Fume hood misuse

4. Inappropriate user modifications


45/46

Summary of Issues Raised

z There is concern that codes and standards may not

offer adequate guidance for energy efficiencyz Many energy efficient technologies and practices are

not at saturation point

z Maintenance issues play a role beyond design intothe long term bldg. operation

z There is concern that current codes and standards may

not be adequate to ensure safety of lab occupantsz There is interest in additional research quantifying the

correlation between lab ventilation and health risks


46/46

z If a research center existed, what

deficiencies/clarifications to current codes andstandards would you like to see addressed?

Identifying energy consumption reduction options withoutsacrificing occupant safety

Safety of low flow fume hoods

Common ventilation standards that address laboratories

Improved techniques for estimating energy options Clarification of hazardous exhaust system options

Discussion

wooliams presentation

Documents