“The Sampling Officials” | “Syndics of the Drapers’ Guild” 1662 Rembrandt
Today we run a status check on public consultations on best practice titles that set the standard of care for risk management in the education facility industry; including university-affiliated healthcare enterprises.
Open to everyone. Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page. Some of topics we cover are listed below:
Security standards (alarms, signaling, human resources, etc.)
Property loss prevention standards
Third party use of education facilities
Athletic and recreational program risk
OSHA regulations (electrical, fall, confined space risk, etc.)
ASHRAE 90.4 defines an alternate compliance path, specific to data centers, while the compliance requirements for “non-data center” components are contained in ASHRAE 90.1 . The 90.4 structure also streamlines the ongoing maintenance process as well ensures that Standards 90.1 and 90.4 stay in their respective lanes to avoid any overlap and redundancies relating to the technical and administrative boundaries. Updates to ASHRAE 90.1 will still include the alternate compliance path defined in ASHRAE 90.4. Conversely the 2022 Edition of 90.4-2022 refers to ASHRAE 90.1-2022; cross-referencing one another synchronously
Links to noteworthy coverage from expert agencies on the 2022 revisions:
This title resides on the standing agenda of our Infotech 400 colloquium; hosted several times per year and as close coupled with the annual meetings of ASHRAE International as possible. Technical committees generally meet during these meetings make decisions about the ASHRAE catalog. The next all committee conference will be hostedJanuary 20-24, 2024 in Chicago. As always we encourage education industry facility managers, energy conservation workgroups and sustainability professionals to participate directly in the ASHRAE consensus standard development process. It is one of the better facilities out there.
Proposed Addendum g makes changes to definitions were modified in section 3 and mandatory language in Section 6 to support the regulation of process heat and process ventilation was moved in the section for clarity. Other changes are added based on comments from the first public review including changes to informative notes.
Consultation closes June 4th
Update: February 10, 2023
The most actively managed consensus standard for data center energy supply operating in education communities (and most others) is not published by the IEEE but rather by ASHRAE International — ASHRAE 90.4 Energy Standard for Data Centers (2019). It is not required to be a free access title although anyone may participate in its development. It is copyrighted and ready for purchase but, for our purpose here, we need only examine its scope and purpose. A superceded version of 90.4 is available in the link below:
It is likely that the technical committee charged with updating this standard are already at work preparing an updated version that will supercede the 2019 Edition. CLICK HERE for a listing of Project Committee Interim Meetings.
We maintain many titles from the ASHRAE catalog on the standing agenda of our Mechanical, Energy 200/400, Data and Cloud teleconferences. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.
Originally posted Summer 2020.
ASHRAE International has released four new addenda to its energy conservation consensus document ASHRAE 90.4-2016 Energy Standard for Data Centers. This document establishes the minimum energy efficiency requirements of data centers for design and construction, for the creation of a plan for operation and maintenance and for utilization of on-site or off-site renewable energy resources.
It is a relatively new document more fully explained in an article published by ASHRAE in 2016 (Click here). The addenda described briefly:
Addendum a – clarifies existing requirements in Section 6.5 as well as introduce new provisions to encourage heat recovery within data centers.
Addendum b – clarifies existing requirements in Sections 6 and 11 and to provide guidance for taking credit for renewable energy systems.
Addendum d – a response to a Request for Interpretation on the 90.4 consideration of DieselRotary UPS Systems (DRUPS) and the corresponding accounting of these systems in the Electrical Loss Component (ELC). In crafting the IC, the committee also identified several marginal changes to 90.4 definitions and passages in Section 8 that would add further clarity to the issue. This addendum contains the proposed changes for that aim as well as other minor changes to correct spelling or text errors, incorporate the latest ELC values into Section 11, and to refresh information in the Normative Reference.
Addendum e adds language to Section 11 intended to clarify how compliance with Standard 90.4 can be achieved through the use of shared systems.
Comments are due September 6th. Until this deadline you may review the changes and comment upon them by by CLICKING HERE
Education facility managers, energy conservation workgroups and sustainability professionals are encouraged to participate directly in the ASHRAE standard development process. Start at ASHRAE’s public commenting facility:
The ASHRAE catalog is a priority title in our practice. This title appears on the standing agenda of our Infotech sessions. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.
The MIL-SPEC catalog and its evolution have had a significant impact on various industries beyond the military sector. Many civilian industries have adopted military standards as a benchmark for quality, reliability, and compatibility in their products and processes.
World War II Era:
The MIL-SPEC system traces its roots back to the World War II era when the U.S. military faced challenges in coordinating manufacturing efforts across multiple suppliers. To address these challenges, the military began developing specifications and standards that detailed the requirements for various equipment and materials, including dimensions, materials, performance criteria, and testing procedures.
Post-World War II:
After World War II, the MIL-SPEC catalog expanded significantly to cover a wide range of military equipment, ranging from electronics and aircraft components to clothing and food supplies. The standards were continuously updated and revised based on technological advancements, lessons learned, and evolving military needs.
Evolution into MIL-STD:
In the 1950s and 1960s, the MIL-SPEC system evolved into the Military Standard (MIL-STD) system to provide even more comprehensive and detailed specifications. MIL-STD documents incorporated a broader scope of requirements, including design criteria, quality control processes, and test methodologies. The MIL-STD system aimed to ensure consistent design and manufacturing practices across contractors and suppliers.
MIL-STD Transition to Commercial Standards:
Over time, the reliance on MIL-STDs started to decline, and there was a shift towards adopting commercial standards whenever possible. This transition allowed the military to benefit from the advancements and cost efficiencies of commercial technologies. However, certain critical military-specific standards, such as those related to security and specialized equipment, continued to be maintained within the MIL-STD framework.
DoD’s Transition to Performance-Based Specifications:
In recent years, the DoD has been moving away from prescriptive specifications (MIL-STDs) towards performance-based specifications. Performance-based specifications focus on defining the desired outcomes and performance requirements while allowing contractors greater flexibility in meeting those requirements. This approach encourages innovation, cost-effectiveness, and broader industry participation in military contracts.
The West Virginia University PRT (Personal Rapid Transit) system is a unique and innovative form of public transportation that serves the WVU campus and the city of Morgantown, West Virginia. The PRT system consists of a series of automated, driverless vehicles that operate on an elevated track network, providing fast and convenient transportation to key destinations on and around the WVU campus.
The PRT system was first developed in the 1970s as a solution to the growing traffic congestion and parking demand on the WVU campus. The system was designed to be efficient, reliable, and environmentally friendly, and to provide a high-tech, futuristic mode of transportation that would appeal to students and visitors.
The PRT system currently operates five different stations, with stops at key campus locations such as the Mountainlair Student Union, the Engineering Research Building, and the Health Sciences Center. The system is free for all WVU students, faculty, and staff, and also offers a low-cost fare for members of the general public.
The PRT system has been recognized as one of the most advanced and innovative public transportation systems in the world, and has won numerous awards for its design, efficiency, and environmental sustainability. It has also become an iconic symbol of the WVU campus, and is often featured in promotional materials and advertising campaigns for the university.
“Evaluation of the West Virginia University Personal Rapid Transit System” | A. Katz and A. Finkelstein (Journal of Transportation Engineering, 1987) This paper evaluates the technical and operational performance of the WVU PRT system based on data collected over a six-year period. The authors identify several issues with the system, including maintenance problems, limited capacity, and difficulties with vehicle docking and undocking.
“Modeling of the West Virginia University Personal Rapid Transit System” by J. Schroeder and C. Wilson (Transportation Research Record, 2002) This paper presents a mathematical model of the WVU PRT system that can be used to analyze its performance and identify potential improvements. The authors use the model to evaluate the impact of various factors, such as station dwell time and vehicle capacity, on the system’s overall performance.
“Evaluating the Effectiveness of Personal Rapid Transit: A Case Study of the West Virginia University System” by K. Fitzpatrick, M. Montufar, and K. Schreffler (Journal of Transportation Technologies, 2013) This paper analyzes the effectiveness of the WVU PRT system based on a survey of users and non-users. The authors identify several challenges facing the system, including low ridership, reliability issues, and high operating costs.
Energy 400: Codes and standards for energy systems between campus buildings. (District energy systems including interdependence with electrical and water supply)
A different “flavor of money” runs through each of these domains and this condition is reflected in best practice discovery and promulgation. Energy 200 is less informed by tax-free (bonded) money than Energy 400 titles.
Some titles cover safety and sustainability in both interior and exterior energy domains so we simply list them below:
There are other ad hoc and open-source consortia that occupy at least a niche in this domain. All of the fifty United States and the Washington DC-based US Federal Government throw off public consultations routinely and, of course, a great deal of faculty interest lies in research funding.
Please join our daily colloquia using the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.
ICYMI – here is our 50th anniversary lecture from Professor Helen Thompson on the 1970s energy crises and what we can learn from it, with some great questions from our audience! https://t.co/9XUqc3fx5fpic.twitter.com/zHvqY8HYL1
These Guidelines cover fossil-fueled power plants, gas-turbine power plants operating in combined cycle, and a balance-of-plant portion including interface with the steam supply system of nuclear power plants. They include performance monitoring concepts, a description of various methods available, and means for evaluating particular applications.
Since the original publication of these Guidelines in 1993—then limited to steam power plants—the field of performance monitoring (PM) has gained considerable importance. The lifetime of plant equipment has been improved, while economic demands have increased to extend it even further by careful monitoring. The PM techniques themselves have also been transformed, largely by the emergence of electronic data acquisition as the dominant method of obtaining the necessary information.
These Guidelines present:
• “Fundamental Considerations”—of PM essentials prior to the actual application, so you enter fully appraised of all the requirements, potential benefits and likelihood of tradeoffs of the PM program.
• “Program Implementation”—where the concepts of PM implementation, diagnostics and cycle interrelationships have been brought into closer conjunction, bringing you up-to-date with contemporary practice.
• “Case Studies / Diagnostic Examples”—from the large amount of experience and historical data that has been accumulated since 1993.
Intended for employees of power plants and engineers involved with all aspects of power production.
From ANSI’s PINS registry:
Project Need: This document is being developed in order to address performance monitoring and optimization techniques for different power generating facilities. The latest trends and initiatives in performance monitoring as well as practical case studies and examples will be incorporated.
Stakeholders: Designers, producers/manufacturers, owners, operators, consultants, users, general interest, laboratories, regulatory/government, and distributors.
This document will cover power generation facilities including steam generators, steam turbines, and steam turbine cycles (including balance of plant of nuclear facilities), gas turbines, and combined cycles. The guidelines include performance monitoring concepts, a description of various methods available, and means for evaluating particular applications.
No drafts open for public consultation at this time. The PINS announcement was placed on October 11th*. The PINS registry is a stakeholder mapping platform that identifies the beginning of a formal process that may interest other accredited, competitor standards developers. Many ASME consensus products may be indirectly referenced in design guidelines and construction contracts with the statement “Conform to all applicable codes”
The landing page for the ASME standards development enterprise is linked below:
Note that you will need to set up a (free) account to access this and other ASME best practice titles.
We maintain all ASME consensus products on the standing agenda of our periodic Mechanical and Energy teleconferences. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.
We break down our coverage of laboratory safety and sustainability standards thus:
Laboratories 100 covers a broad overview of the safety and sustainability standards setting catalogs; emphasis on titles incorporated by reference into public safety laws.
Laboratories 200 covers laboratory occupancies primarily for teaching
Laboratories 300 covers laboratories in healthcare clinical delivery.
Laboratories 400 covers laboratories for scientific research; long since creating the field of environmental health and safety in higher education and a language (and acronyms of its own: CSHEMA)
In the most recent fiscal year, the National Institutes of Health had a budget of approximately $47.7 billion. A substantial portion of this budget is allocated to research at colleges and universities. Specifically, about 83% of NIH’s funding, which translates to roughly $39.6 billion, is awarded for extramural research. This funding is distributed through nearly 50,000 competitive grants to more than 2,500 universities, medical schools, and other research institutions across the United States
The cost to build a “standard” classroom runs about $150 to $400 per square foot; a scientific research laboratory about $400 to $1200 per square foot.
Laboratories 500 is broken out as a separate but related topic and will cover conformity and case studies that resulted in litigation. Both Laboratories 200 and 400 will refer to the cases but not given a separate colloquium unless needed.
At the usual time. Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.
“Evaluating the Efficacy of Laboratory Hazard Assessment Tools for Risk Management in Academic Research Laboratories” – This study from 2021 evaluated the effectiveness of various laboratory hazard assessment tools in academic research laboratories, and found that a combination of tools and approaches may be most effective for managing risks.
“A Framework for Assessing Laboratory Safety Culture in Academic Research Institutions” – This 2020 study developed a framework for assessing laboratory safety culture in academic research institutions, which can help identify areas for improvement and promote a culture of safety.
“Enhancing Laboratory Safety Culture Through Peer-to-Peer Feedback and Coaching” – This 2020 study found that peer-to-peer feedback and coaching can be an effective way to enhance laboratory safety culture, as it encourages open communication and feedback among colleagues.
“Assessing the Effectiveness of Laboratory Safety Training Programs for Graduate Students” – This 2019 study evaluated the effectiveness of laboratory safety training programs for graduate students, and found that interactive and hands-on training was more effective than traditional lecture-based training.
“Improving Laboratory Safety Through the Use of Safety Climate Surveys” – This 2018 study found that safety climate surveys can be an effective way to improve laboratory safety, as they provide insight into employee perceptions of safety culture and identify areas for improvement.
These recent research findings suggest that laboratory safety culture can be improved through a variety of approaches, including hazard assessment tools, peer-to-peer feedback and coaching, interactive training, and safety climate surveys. Some of these findings will likely set the standard of care we will see in safety standards incorporated by reference into public safety regulations.
Related:
November 29, 2021
Today we break down the literature setting the standard of care for the safety and sustainability of instruction and research laboratories in the United States specifically; and with sensitivity to similar enterprises in research universities elsewhere in the world. We will drill into the International Code Council Group A titles which are receiving public input until January 10, 2022.
Join us by clicking the Daily Colloquia link at the upper right of our home page.
The original University of Michigan Workspace for [Issue 13-28] in which we advocate for risk-informed eyewash and emergency shower testing intervals has been upgraded to the new Google Sites platform: CLICK HERE
Related:
September 20, 2021
Today we break down the literature setting the standard of care for the safety and sustainability of instruction and research laboratories in the United States specifically; and with sensitivity to similar enterprises in research universities elsewhere in the world.
Join us by clicking the Daily Colloquia link at the upper right of our home page.
May 10, 2021
Today we will poke through a few proposals for the 2021/222 revision of the International Code Council’s Group A Codes. For example:
IFC § 202 et. al | F175-21| Healthcare Laboratory Definition
IBC § 202 et. al | E7-21| Collaboration Room
IBC § 1110.3 et. al | E143-21| Medical scrub sinks, art sinks, laboratory sinks
. . .
IFGC § 403, etl al| G1-21| Accessibility of fuel gas shut off valves
IBC § 307 Tables | G36-21| For hazardous materials in Group B higher education laboratory occupancies
IBC § 302.1 et. al | G121-21| Separation from other nonlaboratory areas for higher education laboratories
And about 20 others we discussed during the Group A Hearings ended last week. We will have until July 2nd to respond. The electrotechnology proposals will be referred to the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee which is now preparing responses to this compilation by Kimberly Paarlberg.
March 15, 2021
Today we break down action in the literature governing the safety and sustainability of instruction and research laboratories in the United States specifically; but also with sensitivity to similar enterprises in research universities elsewhere in the world. “Everyone” has an iron in this fire:
…and ISEA, AWWA, AIHA, BIFMA, CLSI, LIA, IAPMO, NSF, UL etc. among ANSI accredited standards developing organizations…
..and addition to NIST, Federal code of Regulations Title 29, NIH, CDC, FEMA, OSHA etc
…and state level public health regulations; some of them adapted from OSHA safety plans
Classroom and offices are far simpler. Laboratories are technically complicated and sensitive area of concern for education communities not only responsible for the safety of instructional laboratories but also global communities with faculty and staff that must simultaneously collaborate and compete. We have been tip-toeing through the technical and political minefields for nearly 20 years now and have had some modest success that contributes to higher safety and lower costs for the US education community.
Colloquium open to everyone. Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.
Safety and sustainability concepts for research and healthcare delivery cut across many disciplines and standards suites and provides significant revenue for most research universities. The International Code Council provides free access to current editions of its catalog of titles incorporated by reference into public safety law. CLICK HERE for an interactive edition of Chapter 38 of the 2021 International Fire Code.
During today’s colloquium we will examine consultations for the next edition in the link below:
We encourage our colleagues to participate directly in the ICC Code Development process. The next revision of the International Fire Code will be undertaken accordingly to next ICC Code Development schedule; the timetable linked below:
We encourage directly employed front-line staff of a school district, college or university that does not operate in a conformance/compliance capacity — for example, a facility manager of an academic unit — to join a committee. Not the Fire Marshall. Not the Occupational Safety Inspector. Persons with job titles listed below:
Fire Safety System Designer
Fire Alarm Technician (Shop Foreman)
Building Commissioner
Electrical, Mechanical Engineer
Occupational Safety Engineer
These subject matter experts generally have a user-interest point of view.
Contact Kimberly Paarlberg (kpaarlberg@iccsafe.org) for information about how to do so.
New update alert! The 2022 update to the Trademark Assignment Dataset is now available online. Find 1.29 million trademark assignments, involving 2.28 million unique trademark properties issued by the USPTO between March 1952 and January 2023: https://t.co/njrDAbSpwBpic.twitter.com/GkAXrHoQ9T
.jpg)
.jpg)
