PageD4 Archives - Page 2 of 7 - Standards Michigan

How students help to improve campus parking

Parking Lot Striping Standards

Gallery: Electric Vehicle Fire Risk

Student Accommodation

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.

Monograph: The Case for Campus Housing

Off-Campus Housing

The topic cuts across many disciplines and standards setting organization bibliographies. We usually set our bearing with the following titles:

2021 International Building Code: Section 310 Residential Group R-2 + related titles such as the IFC, IMC, IPC, IECC

2021 Fire Code: Chapter 6 Classification of Occupancy + related titles such as NFPA 70B, NFPA 72 and NFPA 110

2023 National Electrical Code: Articles 210-230 + related Articles 110 and 410

ASHRAE 90.1 Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings: Annex G

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.

More

National Institute of Standards & Technology: The Character of Residential Cooktop Fires

Deserted College Dorms Sow Trouble for $14 Billion in Muni Bonds

Dormitory, Fraternity, Sorority and Barrack Structure Fires

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.

Gallery: Off-Campus Accommodation

Solberg

Standards South Dakota

Laboratories 100

Starting 2023 we will break down our coverage of laboratory standards thus:

Laboratories 100 will cover a broad overview of the safety and sustainability standards setting catalogs; emphasis on titles incorporated by reference into public safety laws.

Laboratories 200 will cover laboratory occupancies primarily for teaching and healthcare clinical delivery.

Laboratories 400 will cover laboratories for scientific research.

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.

February 27, 2023

Research findings related to laboratory safety:

Identifying and Evaluation Hazards in Research Laboratories
“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.
Chemistry laboratory safety climate survey (CLASS): A tool for measuring students’ perceptions of safety

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.

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

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.

Classification of Laboratory Ventilation Design Levels – ASHRAE

ASHRAE Laboratory Design Guide

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:

International Building Code Chapter 38: Higher Education Laboratories

ASCE Structural Engineering Institute (so that the foundations and “bone structure” of laboratories survive earthquakes, floods and other Force majeure mayhem)

National Electrical Code Chapter 5: Special Occupancies

ASHRAE Laboratory Design Guide

NFPA 45 Standard on Fire Protection for Laboratories Using Chemicals

IEEE Electrical Safety in Academic Laboratories

…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.

Source: NACUBO.ORG

More

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

National Institutes of Health

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

NFPA Fire Code requirements for laboratories at colleges and universities

Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute

National Conference of Standards Laboratories

National Institute of Standards and Technology/Information Technology Laboratory

The NELAC Institute

Laboratory Safety Guidance

Biosafety Cabinetry

Fire Protection for Laboratories Using Chemicals

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)

Biomedical_Science_Research_2010 university of michigan 1921 721

Scott_Lab_OSU university laboratory ohio 1921 721

Vucel_1 wellington laboratory university of wellington

Biocentrum_SLU_January_2013_04 Swedish University of Agricultural Science 1920 721

University_of_Utah_Hospital_in_2009 1921 721 featured twlight

Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine interior health facebook cover 1921 721

This standard is on the standing agenda of our periodic Laboratory standards teleconference. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to anyone.

Issue: [19-60]

Category: Prometheus, Laboratory, Risk

Colleagues: Richard Robben, Mark Schaufele

Higher Education Laboratories

2024 GROUP A PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE I-CODES: Complete Monograph (2658 pages)

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:

2021 International Fire Code Chapter 38 Higher Education Laboratories

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:

2024/2025/2026 ICC CODE DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE

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.

A warm welcome to our new master's student, Prabhakar Bijalwan! Prabhakar enjoys performing new #Autocatalytic #Transamination #Metathesis reactions in our lab! #WasteReduction #Sustainability @UniFAU

Check out our first autocatalytic transamination: https://t.co/ZaA9TD787T pic.twitter.com/RLqrfxD4CR

— Svetlana Tsogoeva (@Tsogoeva_Group) April 3, 2024

2021 International Plumbing Code

2021 International Energy Conservation Code

Issue 16-69

Category: Fire Safety, Facility Asset Management

Colleagues: Joe DeRosier, Josh Elvove, Mark Schaufele

Archive / Higher Education Laboratories

Meeting Point

Danse de recherche sur le cancer

Campus Micromobility 300

Artist: Syd Mead | Photo Credit: United States Steel

We find town-gown political functionaries working to accommodate students traveling on micro-scooters. Several non-profit trade associations compete for “ownership” of some part of the economic activity associated with micromobility. One of several domain incumbents is SAE International. Here is how SAE International describes the micromobility transformation:

“…Emerging and innovative personal mobility devices, sometimes referred to as micromobility, are proliferating in cities around the world. These technologies have the potential to expand mobility options for a variety of people. Some of these technologies fall outside traditional definitions, standards, and regulations. This committee will initially focus on low-speed micromobility devices and the technology and systems that support them that are not normally subject to the United States Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards or similar regulations. These may be device-propelled or have propulsion assistance. They are low-speed devices that have a maximum device-propelled speed of 30 mph. They are personal transportation vehicles designed to transport three or fewer people. They are consumer products but may be owned by shared- or rental-fleet operators. This committee is concerned with the eventual utilization and operational characteristics of these devices, and how they may be safely incorporated in the transportation infrastructure. This committee will develop and maintain SAE Standards, Recommended Practices, and Information Reports within this classification of mobility. The first task of the committee will be to develop a taxonomy of low-speed micromobility devices and technologies. Currently, many of these terms are not consistently named, defined, or used in literature and practice. This task will also help refine the scope of the committee and highlight future work….”

Micromobility standards development requires sensitivity to political developments in nearly every dimension we can imagine.

University of Toledo

Specifically, we follow developments in SAE J3194: Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Micromobility Devices. Getting scope, title, purpose and definitions established is usually the first step in the process of developing a new technical consensus product. From the project prospectus:

This Recommended Practice provides a taxonomy and definitions for terms related to micromobility devices. The technical report covers low-speed micromobility devices (with a maximum device-propelled speed of 30 mph) and the technology and systems that support them that are not normally subject to the United States Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards or similar regulations. These devices may be device-propelled or have propulsion assistance. Micromobility devices are personal transportation vehicles designed to transport three or fewer people. They are consumer products but may be owned by shared- or rental-fleet operators. This Recommended Practice does not provide specifications or otherwise impose requirements of micromobility devices.

SAE standards action appears on the pages linked below:

SAE Standards Development Home Page

SAE Standards Works

SAE International is proud to announce the release of SAE J3400™ North American Charging Standard (NACS) Electric Vehicle Coupler Technical Information Report.

Click the link for more information: https://t.co/diauiuev97 pic.twitter.com/zjK5sf1R6L

— SAE International® (@SAEIntl) December 19, 2023

Apart from the rising level of discussion on vehicle-to-grid technologies (which we track more closely with the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee) there is no product at the moment that business units in the education industry can comment upon. Many relevant SAE titles remain “Works in Progress”. When a public commenting opportunity on a candidate standard presents itself we will post it here.

We host periodic Mobility colloquia; SAE titles standing items on the agenda. See our CALENDAR for the next online session; open to everyone.