ROADMAP - APPA · Roadmap to High Performance Labs and Critical Control Environments February 2018 Exposure Control Technologies , Inc. 8 3.1 Phase 1A - Plan: Qualitative Scoping

TO HIGH PERFORMANCE LABORATORIESAND CRITICAL CONTROL ENVIRONMENTS

©2018 - Exposure Control Technologies, Inc. 231-C East Johnson St., Cary, NC 27513

ROADMAP

Roadmap to High Performance Labs and Critical Control Environments February 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 2

1.1 PREAMBLE 2

1.2 WHY SMART LABS? 2

1.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS GUIDE 3

2 STRATEGIC EXECUTION OF THE PROCESS 4

3 PHASES AND TASKS FOR OPTIMIZATION PERFORMANCE 7

3.1 PHASE 1A - PLAN: QUALITATIVE SCOPING STUDY 8

3.2 PHASE 1B - ASSESSMENT: QUANTITATIVE PERFORMANCE AUDIT 9

3.3 PHASE 2 - OPTIMIZATION: CONSTRUCTION, RENOVATION, UPGRADE SYSTEMS 10

3.4 PHASE 3 - MANAGEMENT 14

4 ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND RESOURCES 16

5 CONCLUSION 17

6 REFERENCES 18

1©2018 - Exposure Control Technologies , Inc.


1 - Introduction

1.1 Preamble

Government, university, life science, healthcare, and industrial organizations spend hundreds of millions of dollars building laboratories to attract highly skilled people and provide them with special workspaces that support scientific activities, inspire innovation and bolster success of the organization. Laboratory success is crucial to the advancement of these institutions and it is often the sole driver of their reputation, growth and profitability. Yet numerous studies indicate that many laboratory buildings suffer significant and persistent operational issues that hinder success of lab activities, increase waste, and negatively impact the financial health of the organization. When left unresolved, these issues can degrade performance, scare off top talent and worse, cause irrevocable harm to people, property or the environment. When asked about the state of some laboratories, a Harvard scientist stated, “good science can happen in a bad building, but a bad building impacts good science.”

The University of California – Irvine (UCI) Smart Labs™ program, together with work by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) demonstrates that a systems-based, management approach coupled with advanced monitoring and control technologies can achieve high performance laboratories and critical control environments. Employing these methods during design and construction of new facilities, or when upgrading existing facilities, can yield significant and material benefits including:

• Safe and healthy workspaces that promote recruitment and retention of top scientists,• Reduced energy consumption and lower operating costs,• Reduced degradation, deferred maintenance and property loss,

• Lower risk for the organization and greater returns on investment.

1.2 Why Smart Labs?

Laboratory buildings are complex, costly and challenging to operate, but properly functioning labs are essential to the long-term success of any science and technology organization. People working in labs depend on proper design and operation of the building systems to provide safe and controlled workspaces to support their scientific endeavors. The laboratory airflow control systems are critical to get right. Laboratory HVAC systems:

• Are the primary means of safety and comfort for people working in labs, • Account for as much as 40% of the cost of constructing modern laboratories, • Are the largest consumer of energy in a laboratory building (45% to 85%), • Typically operate at 50% more flow than required, and • Require the greatest level of effort from stakeholders responsible for managing and maintaining operation.

2 ©2018 - Exposure Control Technologies , Inc.


It is well documented that laboratories typically consume 3 to 10 times more energy than similarly sized commercial buildings and as much as 50% of that energy is wasted by inefficient and poorly operating fume hoods and ventilation systems. When properly implemented, the Smart Labs approach enables facility stakeholders to plan and cost effectively achieve high performance laboratories that mitigate risk, operate dependably, provide greater flexibility, reduce energy consumption and minimize costs. These benefits can all be realized with a predictable and demonstrable return on investment.

Figure 2 shows a diagram of the roadmap for optimizing performance of new or existing facilities. The roadmap is comprised of distinct phases and tasks that include: campus planning, building assessments, performance optimization and ongoing management. Each phase is further divided into a series of specific tasks proven to deliver high performance labs, support the efforts of key stakeholders and maximize benefits for the organization.

3 Exposure Control Technologies , Inc.

Figure 2 - Roadmap to High Performance Laboratories and Critical Care Environments

1.3 Purpose and Scope of this Guide

This guide describes a proven approach to help optimize performance of laboratories and critical control environments. Although applicable to any type of building, the guide focuses primarily on optimizing performance of laboratories in new or existing buildings. The “roadmap” describes phases and tasks that entail:

• Forming a Smart Labs team comprised of lab stakeholders, contractors and vendors,• Developing a strategic plan for cost effective implementation,• Profiling buildings to rank opportunities and prioritize efforts,• Evaluating risk, determining occupant needs and specifying design and operational requirements,


• Executing meaningful projects with demonstrable paybacks, and• Implementing a lifecycle performance management plan to enhance resilience and sustainability.

Organizations may utilize the process, procedures and tasks as applicable to their facilities and objectives. Regardless of the type of processes, equipment or scope of the optimization project; the safety of people, property and the environment are the inviolable constraint. No activities that have the potential to negatively impact occupant safety and/or the wellbeing of the organization shall be recommended or implemented under this program or processes.

2 - Strategic Execution of the Process

Laboratory buildings vary in age, size, function and type of systems. Depending on the state of the systems, safety objectives, energy goals and available funds, optimization projects can range from implementation of simple, low cost measures to full scale renovation of buildings involving highly complex and costly measures. Site management may consider many factors when selecting and prioritizing labs for optimization. Based on available funds, timing, asset value and other factors, some buildings should receive higher priority. Where the scope of the project exceeds available funds or annual budget allowance, utility incentives and other funding sources such as energy saving performance contracts may be available to assist with project execution. In some cases, it may be feasible to prepare a strategic project plan that executes the work over multiple years to leverage annual budgets while still achieving the end objectives in a predictable, yet extended timeframe.

The roadmap describes a systematic, risk based, demand driven process that enables stakeholders, working with a team of specialized contractors and vendors, to plan and cost effectively achieve safe, efficient and sustainable labs. These activities require leadership and significant investment in terms of stakeholder efforts, funding and other resources. It is imperative that the efforts focus on executing the best or most advantageous projects first, and then utilizing the lessons learned and success to support additional optimization projects. Figure 3 provides additional description of the primary phases, deliverables and objectives.


Figure 3 - High Performance Lab Optimization Process and Phases


Where multiple buildings are involved such as shown in Figure 4, Phase 1A involves a qualitative scoping study to collect pertinent data to profile and rank order the buildings. It is recommended that the initial study be limited to less than 10 buildings with the goal of selecting up to 5 buildings for Phase 1B. The qualitative scoping study utilizes key performance indicators (KPIs) and other factors to produce a Laboratory Condition Profile Report. The report provides a description of opportunities, estimate of costs and a description of benefits to help prioritize and select the best candidates for optimization.


Figure 4 - Multiple Building Research Facility

For developing a strategic plan for implementation, Phase 1A is undertaken to profile, rank order and prioritize laboratories for selection and optimization. Following selection, Phase 1B moves to a quantitative performance audit that includes a significantly deeper evaluation of the building systems similar to an ASHRAE Level 2 or Level 3 Energy Audit with the additional evaluation of occupant utilization, risk and laboratory safety requirements. The information gathered during Phase 1B provides a detailed scope of work with costs to proceed towards Phase 2 Optimization. It is during the Phase 2 that the systems are constructed, renovated or upgraded as appropriate to maximize performance. Phase 2 also includes enhanced commissioning that benchmarks performance of the systems to provide the basis for ongoing management and maintenance. The final Phase 3 includes implementation of a lifecycle performance management plan that provides the tasks, schedules and procedures to maintain efficient and effective operation while identifying and accommodating change over time. Figure 5 shows application of the process to 5 buildings. Note that the timeline and potential duration of activities for undertaking concurrent projects in multiple buildings. With utilization of lessons learned during the effort, subsequent projects may be conducted more efficiently through better teamwork, management support and leadership. However, attempts to execute the process in too many buildings simultaneously can strain resources and create excess burden for stakeholders. Conversely, sequential execution of projects will extend the timeline for implementation.


6Exposure Control Technologies , Inc.

Figure 5 - Diagram showing Smart Labs process applied to multiple buildings



3 - Phases and Tasks for Optimizing Performance

Each phase of the approach is comprised of multiple tasks that culminate with specific deliverables that facilitate the next phase. Figure 6 shows a flow chart of phases, tasks and deliverables. Each phase and task are described in more detail below.

Figure 6 - Optimization Process comprised of Phases, Tasks and Deliverables



3.1 Phase 1A - Plan: Qualitative Scoping Study

Phase 1A consists of a qualitative scoping study employed to gather information about the laboratories, identify issues, qualify opportunities, establish budgets, and set priorities for implementing the Phase 1B Assessments. The specific tasks and deliverables for this Phase 1A are shown in Figure 7 and described below in Table 1.

Figure 7 - Tasks and Deliverables for Phase 1A - Qualitative Scoping Study

Task ID Task Name Task Description

1A-ASmart Labs Team

Formation and Coordination

Assign Lab Ventilation Manager/Coordinator to coordinate tasks, schedules, meetings, analysis and deliverables. The Manager or Coordinator is responsible for maintaining lines of communication, scheduling tasks and ensuring program deliverables. The team members from the facility include representatives from:

• Management (Leadership, Finance, etc.)

• Facilities Engineering (Design, Construction, Energy, Projects, Space Planning, etc.)

• Environmental Health and Safety (EH&S)

• Maintenance, Operations and Sustainability

• Principal Scientists and Lab Occupants

Additional team members may include representatives from key vendors and contractors to assist with project management, lab safety, lab ventilation, controls, commissioning, etc.

1A-B Laboratory Building Inventory

Gather and categorize relevant information about the laboratory buildings such as age, size, use, number of occupants, number and size of labs, type of HVAC systems and number of devices. It is recommended that the initial effort be limited to a maximum of 10 buildings with the goal of selecting groups of up to 5 buildings for the Phase 2 – Assessment.

1A-C Lab Condition Status

Compile information about the condition of the labs and systems. This information can be gathered through a walk-thru survey like an ASHRAE Level 1 Energy Audit, with inclusion of safety and other productivity/performance issues. The operational status and condition of the building systems weighs heavily in the complexity, cost and duration of an optimization project.

1A-D Profile Lab Building Condition

The building inventory information is combined with data from the lab condition status assessment to compile and evaluate key performance indicators (KPIs). The KPIs can be used to establish a profile of the building based on the state of the systems, opportunities, project complexity and potential benefits. The profile rating can be derived from the KPIs to prioritize and select the best projects. Some critical KPIs include annual average energy cost per square foot, annual average airflow and cost per cubic feet of air per minute.

Deliverable Project Optimization Priority for Phase 2

The deliverable for Phase 1 is a report that describes the buildings and establishes which buildings provide the best opportunities, have the greatest potential for success and provide the most value to the organization within the allowable budgets and timeframe for execution.

Table 1 - Description of Phase 1 Tasks and Deliverables


3.2 Phase 1B - Assessment: Quantitative Performance Audit

Once the buildings have been profiled and prioritized, the next step is to undertake a deeper investigation into the building systems to determine how they currently operate and how they should operate to meet the current functional requirements of the occupants. The difference between current operation and required operation provides the information to assess opportunities and determine appropriate measures for improving performance. The specific tasks and deliverables for Phase 1B are shown in Figure 8 and described in Table 2.

Figure 8 - Tasks and Deliverables for Phase 1B - Quantitative Performance Audit




1B-A Building Design and Operating Documents

Gather building documentation and operating information

• Description of the systems and components that comprise the system.

• Floor plan showing labs and major ventilation devices and energy consuming equipment

• Line diagrams showing discrete systems including fans, ducts, controls and devices.

• Description of the control systems including tables of set-points corresponding to the system diagrams and summary of the known operating sequences that affect modulation and control.

1B-B Lab Ventilation Risk Assessment

The LVRA™ should include evaluation of hazard data, hazardous waste records and site surveys to rate the risk associated with the devices, laboratories and exhaust systems. The observations and risk ratings should be translated into recommended design and operating specifications required for safety. The deliverables for the LVRA include:

• Risk matrices for the ECDs and Fume Hoods

• Risk Matrix for the laboratory spaces

• Risk Matrix for the exhaust systems serving the ECDs and Laboratories

• Recommended design, airflow and operating specifications for lab safety.

1B-C System Operating Tests

Survey and evaluate configuration of systems, assess state of operation and capability of the monitoring and control systems.

• Test a sample of ECDs and Labs to determine current operation

• Evaluate ventilation effectiveness and the ability of the supply and exhaust systems to achieve desired contaminant control across the range of operation.

• Challenge and test operation of the systems to quantify airflow at the boundary conditions of potential operation.

• Establish current operation for comparison to design and data reported by the BAS if available.

1B-D Airflow and Operating Specifications

The demand for ventilation establishes the current airflow requirements that can be used to design systems or compared to how the systems are currently operating. Quantification of the demand for ventilation enables evaluation of the potential for flow reduction and energy conservation. The airflow specifications should be tracked in a flow spreadsheet enabling summation of flow for each ECD, lab and system.

1B-E Energy and Operating Cost Analysis

The analysis of energy and operating costs is conducted to establish current conditions, determine major consumers and evaluate patterns in use. The efforts can help predict the theoretical energy savings for benefit and payback analysis.

Table 2 - Description of Phase 1B Tasks and Deliverables




1B-F Performance Improvement Measures

Performance improvements measures (PIMs) represent enhancements that lead to improved safety, more reliable operation and improve energy efficiency. Bundling measures is usually best to achieve the greatest impact on performance.

Delivera-bles

Scope of Work for Phase 3The deliverable for the Phase 2 Assessment is a report that describes how the systems are currently operating, compares current operation to the current demand for ventilation, identifies deficiencies, identifies applicable performance improvement measures and provides a scope of work that will upgrade performance and result in demonstrable improvements.



3.3 Phase 2 - Optimization: Construction, Renovation, Upgrade Systems

Phase 2 involves appropriating funds and executing the scope of work proposed in the deliverable of Phase 1B. This phase entails design, construction, renovation and upgrade of the fume hoods, laboratories, airflow controls, monitoring and mechanical systems. The specific tasks and deliverables for Phase 2 are shown in Figure 9 and described in Table 3 below.

Figure 9 - Tasks and Deliverables for Phase 2 - Optimization




2-A Engineering & Specifications

Design, installation and modification of systems require an engineering effort to produce specifications, drawings and other information necessary to implement the performance improvement measures. The effort may include detailed plans for installation, replacement of components, upgrading systems, TAB and Commissioning. The engineering plans and specifications also include project management, coordination of efforts and schedules to achieve project goals.

2-B Implement Performance Improvement Measures

Performance improvement measures are intended to enable safe, efficient and sustainable systems. Measures can include upgrading fume hood performance, implementation of advanced sensors, Variable air volume controls, demand control ventilation, and use of efficient fans and mechanical system components.

2-C TAB & Commission

This task involves ensuring that all systems and components are calibrated, tuned and function properly. TAB and Commissioning are included as a combined effort to:

• Adjust flow and calibrate all terminals and flow control components

• Ensure proper function and efficient operation of mechanical system components

• Calibrate and ensure proper function of BAS, Airflow Controls and System Sensors

• Challenge and tune operation of systems controls

• Challenge and tune operation of lab environment controls

• Challenge and ensure proper performance of ECDs and Fume Hoods

2-D Benchmark OperationFollowing establishment of proper calibration and functioning of all systems and components, the systems are challenged to verify performance over the range of expected operation. Document and benchmark final operation parameters. Measure and verify energy savings.

Deliverable Performance Management Plan

The performance management plan is developed to provide the information, procedures and tools to enable the facility to manage and maintain performance. The plan describes the how activities of the different stakeholders and departments are coordinated and integrated to manage performance. The plan provides the means to cost effectively maintain performance and ensure the return on investment.




3.4 - Phase 3 - Management

Phase 3 involves implementing the performance management plan, training of stakeholders and execution of tasks necessary to maintain performance of the systems. Monitoring is combined with test and maintenance efforts to verify proper calibration and operation of the systems. Lab surveys are conducted to evaluate and accommodate potential changes in people, processes or hazards to modify the systems as necessary to maintain safe and efficient operation. The specific tasks and deliverables for Phase 3 are shown in Figure 10 and described in Table 4 below.

Figure 10 - Tasks and Deliverables for Phase 3 - Management




3-A Implement Performance Management Plan

The plan, developed as part of the Phase 3 deliverable, is implemented to define stakeholder responsibilities, establish lines of commu-nication, monitor operation, conduct routine tests and maintenance and evaluate potential for change and impact on system operation. As part of implementation, training is provided for lab occupants, EH&S personnel, maintenance staff and test technicians responsible for managing and maintaining proper performance. The plan is devised to cost effectively maintain performance to ensure return on investment.

3-B BAS Performance Monitoring

Advanced monitoring and control systems are implemented that provide information to monitor and verity proper operation. The mon-itoring may involve sensing chemicals in labs, measuring airflow or reporting operating status of the systems and components. Infor-mation analytics and fault detection can be combined to quickly identify and alert stakeholder to problems or opportunities to further improve performance.

3-C Maintenance and Functional Tests

Execute preventative maintenance activities for all system components. Challenge system operation to identify problematic operation and undertake repair maintenance. Conduct routine lab environment and operational tests on fume hoods and ECDs to ensure continued proper operation. Repair and remediate problems as necessary to provide sustainable operation for the lifecycle of the systems.

3-D Lab Safety Surveys Survey labs, ECDs and systems to verify proper operation and identify changes in risk, demand for ventilation or need to modify the labs, ECDs or operating specifications to accommodate lab occupants.

3-E Change Management In response to changes in personnel, risk profiles, need for lab or system modifications, update all documentation and recommission systems.

Deliverable Performance Status Reports

Report status of systems including operation of components and correlation with energy consumption on a quarterly, bi-annual or annual basis as necessary to document proper operation and performance.





4 - Roles, Responsibilities and Resources

Successful projects are achieved through leadership, allocation of sufficient resources and careful coordination of multiple stakeholders, consultants, contractors and vendors. Numerous people are involved in the process and their efforts must be integrated to manage the costs of implementation and achieve the expected results. The primary stakeholders for a laboratory organization and general responsibilities to this process are shown in Table 5:

Stakeholder General Responsibility

Management• Provide leadership• Remove barriers between departments• Allocate sufficient resources

Research Lab Occupants• Provide information on potentially hazardous materials and processes• Utilize proper work practices• Report significant changes

Environmental Health and Safety

• Conduct Lab Ventilation Risk Assessment• Select ECDs and Establish Specifications for Safety and Health• Conduct routing safety audits and tests

Engineering• Ensure proper design, installation, and commissioning of systems• Maintain up-to-date system documentation

Maintenance• Ensure proper functioning of systems• Conduct preventive and repair maintenance

Purchasing • Ensure equipment is not purchased without approval

Space Planning • Ensure safety and engineering issues are considered in space allocation

Table 5 - Laboratory facility stakeholders and responsibilities for implementing the optimization process



Many facilities find that assignment of a Smart Labs Coordinator helps to support execution, manage schedules, liaise between stakeholders, manage information, track progress and integrate efforts of the consultants, contractors and vendors involved in the various phases and tasks of the process (See Figure 11).

Figure 11 - Smart Labs Management Coordinator for integrating efforts of stakeholders, contractors and vendors.

The Smart Labs process also requires coordination and integration of specialized consultants, contractors and vendors including but not limited to:

• Architects• Project Engineer/Manager• HVAC and Systems Engineers• Energy Analyst/Modeler• Laboratory Risk and Safety Specialist • Building Controls Contractor• Demand Control Ventilation Contractor• Mechanical Contractor• Exhaust Stack and Plume Discharge Consultant • TAB Contractor

• Commissioning Contractor

5 - Conclusion

The Smart Labs Roadmap describes phases and tasks proven to deliver successful projects. Achieving satisfactory results requires investment and a long-term commitment to ensure proper performance that extends throughout the lifecycle of the building. With proper leadership, allocation of sufficient resources and coordination of activities, facilities can build, renovate and manage high performance laboratories and critical control environments. The benefits of proper implementation are numerous and enable organizations to mitigate risk, reduce waste and achieve more sustainable facilities.

Management

HoodUsers

Principal InvestigatorsEngineering

Smart Labs™ Management Coordinator

MaintenanceHealth &

Safety

Consultants and Contractors



6 - References1. ACGIH®: Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice for Design, 27th Edition. Cincinnati,

Ohio: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 2010. 2. ACGIH®: Threshold Limit Values (TLV®) for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents. Cincinnati, Ohio:

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 2002.3. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). 2010. Industrial Ventilation: A

Manual of Recommended Practice for Design, 27th Edition. Cincinnati, Ohio.4. ANSI/AIHA Z9.5, American National Standard for Laboratory Ventilation5. ANSI/ASHRAE 41.2-1987 (RA 92): Standard Methods for Laboratory Air Flow Measurement. Atlanta,

Ga.: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, 1992.6. ANSI/ASHRAE 41.3-1989: Standard Method for Pressure Measurement. Atlanta, Ga.: American Society of

Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, 1989.7. ANSI/ASHRAE 41.7-1984 (RA 00): Method of Test Measurement of Flow of Gas. Atlanta, Ga.: American

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, 2000.8. ANSI/ASHRAE 110-1995: Method of Testing Performance of Laboratory Fume Hoods. Atlanta, Ga.:

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, 1995.9. ASHRAE 90.1 Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings10. ASHRAE 62, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality11. ASHRAE Handbook HVAC Applications.12. ASHRAE Lab Design Guide, 2016.13. Laboratories for the 21st Century, Best Practice Guide Optimizing Laboratory Ventilation Rates, Draft,

September 2008, Pg 1.14. NFPA 45, Fire Protection for Laboratories Using Chemicals15. SEFA, Laboratory Fume Hoods, Recommended Practices16. SMACNA: HVAC Duct Construction Standards: Metal and Flexible, Merrifield, Va.: Sheet Metal and Air

Conditioning Contractors’ National Association, 1995.17. Smith, T.C. and Yancey-Smith, S.L: “Specifying Airflow Rates for Laboratories.”, Journal of Chemical

Health and Safety 16(5): September/October 2009.18. Smith, T.C., and Crooks, S.M.: “Implementing a Laboratory Ventilation Management Program.” Journal of

Chemical Health and Safety 3(2):12–16 (1996).19. Smith, T.C.: “The Unintended Practice of Using Employee Health as an Indicator of Proper Hood Perfor-

mance”, Journal of Chemical Health and Safety, January/February, 2004.

20. Heinsohn, Robert J., Industrial Ventilation Engineering Principles, University Park, PA 1991; D

21. Diberardinis, Louis J., Guidelines for Laboratory Design, 2nd ed, 1993; pg 100.

22. Public Works and Government Services Canada, MD 15127 – 2016: Laboratory Energy and Safety Optimi-zation Process (Lab ESOP).