We are guided by four interdependent titles that set the standard of care for safety and sustainability of occupancies supporting the fine arts in education communities.
(1) Chapter 43: Spraying, Dipping and Coating Using Flammable or Combustible Material of NFPA 1: Fire Code. As a “code” the public has free access to the current 2021 Edition , and Chapter 43 at the link below:
Our interest lies in fire safety provisions for educational occupancies with activity involving paint, chemicals used with paint (art studios) and Class III combustible materials (garment design & prototyping).
(4) Finally, the International Code Council develops a competitor title — 2021 International Fire Code — which also provides fire safety standards for art, design and fashion studio safety. The IFC is developed in the Group A tranche of titles:
We encourage direct participation by education industry user-interests in the ICC and the NFPA code development process. A user interest in education community would have a job title similar to the following: Principal, Dean, President, Chief of Business Operations, Facility Manager, Trade Shop Foreman.
Harvard University
We maintain all four titles identified in this post on the standing agenda of our Prometheus (fire safety) and Fine Arts colloquia. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.
Issue: [10-31] [16-64]
Category: Fire Safety
Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Josh Evolve, Marcelo Hirschler
Abstract: One of the most common questions in the early stages of designing a new facility is whether the normal utility supply to a fire pump is reliable enough to “tap ahead of the main” or whether the fire pump supply is so unreliable that it must have an emergency power source, typically an on-site generator. Apart from the obligation to meet life safety objectives, it is not uncommon that capital on the order of 100000to1 million is at stake for a fire pump backup source. Until now, that decision has only been answered with intuition – using a combination of utility outage history and anecdotes about what has worked before. There are processes for making the decision about whether a facility needs a second source of power using quantitative analysis. Fault tree analysis and reliability block diagram are two quantitative methods used in reliability engineering for assessing risk. This paper will use a simple one line for the power to a fire pump to show how each of these techniques can be used to calculate the reliability of electric power to a fire pump. This paper will also discuss the strengths and weakness of the two methods. The hope is that these methods will begin tracking in the National Fire Protection Association documents that deal with fire pump power sources and can be used as another tool to inform design engineers and authorities having jurisdiction about public safety and property protection. These methods will enlighten decisions about the relative cost of risk control with quantitative information about the incremental cost of additional 9’s of operational availability.
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.
Because of the robustness of the environmental safety units in academia we place this title in the middle of our stack of priorities. Laboratory safety units are generally very well financed because of the significance of the revenue stream they produce. We place higher priority on standby power systems to the equipment and, in many cases, the subjects (frequently animals)
Chemical laboratory, Paris. 1760
We were advocating #TotalCostofOwnership concepts in this document before our work was interrupted by the October 2016 reorganization (See ABOUT). Some of that work was lost so it may be wise to simply start fresh again, ahead of today’s monthly teleconference on laboratory safety codes and standards. The scope of NFPA 45 Standard on Fire Protection for Laboratories Using Chemicals is very large and articulated so we direct you to its home page.
Suffice to say that the conditions under which NFPA 45 may be applied is present in many schools, colleges and universities — both for instructional as well as academic research purposes. Some areas of interest:
Laboratory Unit Hazard Classification
Laboratory Unit Design and Construction
Laboratory Ventilating Systems and Hood Requirements
Educational and Instructional Laboratory Operations
We find considerable interaction with consensus documents produced by the ICC, ASHRAE and NSF International.
It is noteworthy that there are many user-interest technical committee members on this committee from the State University of New York, the University of Kentucky, West Virginia University, the University of Texas, University of California Berkeley and the University of Texas San Antonio; thereby making it one of only a few ANSI accredited standards with a strong user-interest voice from the education. Most of them are conformance/inspection interest — i.e. less interested in cost reduction — but they are present nonetheless. We pick our battles.
The 2023 revision is in an advanced stage of development and on the agenda of the June 2023 Technical Standards Agenda. It will likely be approved for release to the public later this year.
We always encourage direct participation. You may communicate directly with Sarah Caldwell or Laura Moreno at the National Fire Protection Association, One Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471 United States. TEL: 1 800 344-3555 (U.S. & Canada); +1 617 770-3000 (International)
This standard is on the standing agenda of our periodic Laboratory standards teleconference. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to anyone.
In the United States, land surveying is regulated by various professional organizations and government agencies, and there are several technical standards that must be followed to ensure accuracy and consistency in land surveying.
The best practice for land surveying is set by the “Manual of Surveying Instructions” published by an administrative division of the United States Department of the Interior responsible for managing public lands in the United States. The manual provides detailed guidance on the procedures and techniques for conducting various types of land surveys, including public land surveys, mineral surveys, and cadastral surveys.
Another important set of model standards for land surveying is the Minimum Standards for Property Boundary Surveys* published by the National Society of Professional Surveyors. These standards provide guidance on the procedures and techniques for conducting property boundary surveys, including the use of appropriate surveying equipment, the preparation of surveying maps and plats, and the documentation of surveying results. Land surveyors in the United States are also required to adhere to state and local laws and regulations governing land surveying, as well as ethical standards established by professional organizations such as the American Society of Civil Engineers.
The Morrill Land-Grant Act of 1862 granted each state 30,000 acres of federal land for each member of Congress from that state to establish colleges that would teach agriculture, engineering, and military tactics. This legislation led to the establishment of many public universities, including the Texas A&M University, the University of Wisconsin and Michigan State University.
The purpose of the code is to establish minimum requirements to provide a reasonable level of health, safety, property protection and welfare by controlling the design, location, use or occupancy of all buildings and structures through the regulated and orderly development of land and land uses within this jurisdiction.
CLICK IMAGE
Municipalities usually have specific land use or zoning considerations to accommodate the unique needs and characteristics of college towns:
Mixed-Use Zoning: Cities with colleges and universities often employ mixed-use zoning strategies to encourage a vibrant and diverse urban environment. This zoning approach allows for a combination of residential, commercial, and institutional uses within the same area, fostering a sense of community and facilitating interactions between students, faculty, and residents.
Height and Density Restrictions: Due to the presence of educational institutions, cities may have specific regulations on building height and density to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods and maintain the character of the area. These restrictions help balance the need for development with the preservation of the existing urban fabric.
Student Housing: Cities with colleges and universities may have regulations or guidelines for student housing to ensure an adequate supply of affordable and safe accommodations for students. This can include requirements for minimum bedroom sizes, occupancy limits, and proximity to campus.
Parking and Transportation: Given the concentration of students, faculty, and staff, parking and transportation considerations are crucial. Cities may require educational institutions to provide parking facilities or implement transportation demand management strategies, such as promoting public transit use, cycling infrastructure, and pedestrian-friendly designs.
Community Engagement: Some cities encourage colleges and universities to engage with the local community through formalized agreements or community benefit plans. These may include commitments to support local businesses, contribute to neighborhood improvement projects, or provide educational and cultural resources to residents.
This is a relatively new title in the International Code Council catalog; revised every three years in the Group B tranche of titles. Search on character strings such as “zoning” in the link below reveals the ideas that ran through the current revision:
Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015): This Supreme Court case involved a challenge to the town of Gilbert, Arizona’s sign code, which regulated the size, location, and duration of signs based on their content. The court held that the sign code was a content-based restriction on speech and therefore subject to strict scrutiny.
City of Ladue v. Gilleo (1994): In this Supreme Court case, the court struck down a municipal ordinance that banned the display of signs on residential property, except for signs that fell within specific exemptions. The court held that the ban was an unconstitutional restriction on the freedom of speech.
Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego (1981): This Supreme Court case involved a challenge to a San Diego ordinance that banned off-premises advertising signs while allowing on-premises signs. The court held that the ordinance was an unconstitutional restriction on free speech, as it discriminated against certain types of speech.
City of Ladue v. Center for the Study of Responsive Law, Inc. (1980): In this Supreme Court case, the court upheld a municipal ordinance that prohibited the display of signs on public property, but only if the signs were posted for longer than 10 days. The court held that the ordinance was a valid time, place, and manner restriction on speech.
City of Boerne v. Flores (1997): This Supreme Court case involved a challenge to a municipal sign code that regulated the size, location, and content of signs in the city. The court held that the sign code violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as it burdened the exercise of religion without a compelling government interest.
Harvard University Dormitory Room | Smithsonian Museum | Thomas Warren Sears Collection
Today we break down public consultation notices for literature that sets the standard of care for the safety and sustainability of student housing in K-12 prep schools, colleges and universities. We deal with off-campus housing in a separate session because it involves local safety and sustainability regulations; most of which are derived from residential housing codes and standards.
Like any other classification of real property the average cost for room and board for a public university student dormitory depends on several factors such as the location of the university, the type of dormitory, and the meal plan options. According to the College Board, the average cost of room and board for the 2021-2022 academic year at a public four-year in-state institution was $11,620. However, this figure can range from around $7,000 to $16,000 or more depending on the specific institution and its location. It’s important to note that this average cost only includes the basic meal plan and standard dormitory room. Students may also have additional costs for a larger or more luxurious dorm room, a premium meal plan, or other expenses such as laundry or parking fees.
According to ring Rider Levett Bucknall, a global property and construction consultancy firm, the average construction cost for a student housing facility in the United States in 2021 was around $202 per square foot. However, this figure can range from around $150 to $300 per square foot or more depending on the specific project. Life cycle cost for new facilities with tricked out net-zero gadgets is hard to come by at the moment.
Because money flows freely through this domain we examine scalable densities and the nature of money flow patterns; partially tracked by the Electronic Municipal Market Access always on the standing agenda of our Finance colloquium.
Here are a few pros and cons of private sector construction of university-owned student housing:
Pros:
Increased housing availability: Private sector developers may be able to build more student housing units than a university could build on its own, which can help to alleviate the shortage of on-campus housing for students.
Faster construction: Private developers may be able to complete construction projects faster than universities, which can help to reduce the amount of time that students must wait for new housing options.
Reduced financial burden on the university: The cost of building and maintaining student housing can be significant, and private sector developers may be willing to bear some of these costs. This can help to reduce the financial burden on the university and free up resources for other initiatives.
Professional management: Private developers may have more experience managing large housing projects and may be able to provide more professional management services than a university could provide on its own.
Cons:
Higher costs for students: Private developers may charge higher rents than a university would charge for student housing, which can make housing less affordable for some students.
Reduced university control: Private developers may have different priorities than a university would have when it comes to building and managing student housing. This can lead to a reduced level of control for the university over housing quality, management, and policies.
Potential conflicts of interest: Private developers may be more focused on making a profit than on meeting the needs of students or the university, which can create potential conflicts of interest.
Less transparency: Private developers may not be subject to the same level of transparency and accountability as a university would be when it comes to housing policies, decision-making processes, and financial management.
It’s important to note that these pros and cons may vary depending on the specific circumstances and context of each individual university and private sector partnership.
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.
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
