90 is our standard at BMS. We developed a modified ASHRAE test (more rigorous: two mannequin heights, leave lab items in the hood, and simulate someone walking behind the hood) to qualify the safety of this face velocity. Our sashes move horizontally and I am not sure what the opening width is when they do the test. My guess is that it the sashes panels are set to the maximum recommended opening width.
Hope this helps.
-----Original Message-----
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**med.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of DCHAS-L automatic digest system
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 12:01 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**listserv.med.cornell.edu
Subject: DCHAS-L Digest - 18 Apr 2016 to 19 Apr 2016 (#2016-96)
There are 11 messages totaling 3293 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Standard Chemical Fume Hood Face Velocities (7)
2. Public Reports on Hawaii lab explosion (2)
3. OSHA April 18 QuickTakes - Chemical Related Enforcement Actions
4. Ask the Innovators: What should Green Chemistry Education look like?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 10:13:27 +0000
From: "Ellen M. Sweet"
Subject: Re: Standard Chemical Fume Hood Face VelocitiesHi Brandon,
100 fpm is the standard for us. But, we do have some at 80 fpm if they pass a qualitative test with either smoke or dry ice in warm water.
Check out the CHAS website for some resources from the Fume Hood Design Workshop that was held a couple of years ago. It"s under the Technical Resources tab.
SEFA 1 was updated in 2010.
As far at the sash height, we go with 18 inches with a stop installed. I"ve heard of others going as low as 14". We"ve considered this. But, we have too many people who are really tall. The comfortable working height is different for everyone and 18", with instruction to keep the sash between you and your work, seems the most flexible.
Ellen
Ellen Sweet
Laboratory Ventilation Specialist
Department of Environmental Health and Safety Cornell University
315-730-8896
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU] On Behalf Of Chance, Brandon
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 5:32 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: [DCHAS-L] Standard Chemical Fume Hood Face Velocities
DCHASers,
By a quick show of hands, what face velocity do all of you consider as an acceptable velocity for certifying standard chemical fume hoods in academic and research labs? OSHA is pretty vague on the issue (must provide adequate ventilation [1910.1450(e)(3)(iii)]). Appendix A (non-mandatory) references Prudent Practices, where 80-100 is standard, up to 120 is okay for high hazard (no containment benefit proven) and 60fpm may be okay for low flow, specially designed hoods.
Before getting into too much detail, I am curious as to what all of you are considering as passing at 18in sash height, and what you are considering as failing.
Regards,
Brandon S. Chance, M.S., CCHO
Associate Director of Environmental Health and Safety Office of Risk Management Southern Methodist University PO Box 750231 | Dallas, TX 75275-0231
T) 214.768.2430 | M) 469-978-8664
bchance**At_Symbol_Here**smu.edu"‰?| our job in safety is to make the task happen, SAFELY; not to interfere with the work‰?|" Neal Langerman
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 11:07:44 +0000
From: Louis DiBerardinis
Subject: Re: Standard Chemical Fume Hood Face VelocitiesDitto. Could not have said it better. See : https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cls.ucla.edu_cls-2Dpublications&d=CwIGaQ&c=lb62iw4YL4RFalcE2hQUQealT9-RXrryqt9KZX2qu2s&r=meWM1Buqv4IQ27AlK1OJRjcQl09S1Zta6YXKalY_Io0&m=tnlfu1XlbmYSFF8YGDwXBVWK7gHecI8x5_eMtnYElLQ&s=z85EGLlm1mRDPjl2TnM3Y5bDo6GZ01uyGIC9QIYnj9U&e= for more info on lab ventilation.Lou DiBerardinis, CIH, CSPDirector, EHS OfficeMITFrom: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**med.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Debbie M. DeckerSent: Monday, April 18, 2016 8:31 PMTo: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDUSubject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Standard Chemical Fume Hood Face VelocitiesOooo " I"m all atwitter " a fume hood question!In California, 100 fpm is the minimum average face velocity with no point less than 70 fpm (8CCR5154.1). Modern well-engineered fume hoods contain just dandy at 80 to 120 fpm. Over about 125 fpm, there"s too much turbulence for good capture and less than 80 fpm doesn"t contain well, either. At my c!
ampus, we"ve standardized on vertical-rising sashes and 100 fpm at an 18" sash height.Hope this helps,DebbieDebbie M. Decker, CCHO, ACS FellowImmediate Past Chair, Division of Chemical Health and SafetyUniversity of California, Davis(530)754-7964(530)304-6728dmdecker**At_Symbol_Here**ucdavis.eduBirkett's hypothesis: "Any chemical reactionthat proceeds smoothly under normal conditions,can proceed violently in the presence of an idiot."From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU] On Behalf Of Chance, BrandonSent: Monday, April 18, 2016 2:32 PMTo: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDUSubject: [DCHAS-L] Standard Chemical Fume Hood Face VelocitiesDCHASers,By a quick show of hands, what face velocity do all of you consider as an acceptable velocity for certifying standard chemical fume hoods in academic and research labs? OSHA is pretty vague on the issue (must provide adequate ventilation [1910.1450(e)(3)(iii)]). Appendix A (!
non-mandatory) references Prudent Practices, where 80-100 is standard, up to 120 is okay for high hazard (no containment benefit proven) and 60fpm may be okay for low flow, specially designed hoods.Before getting into too much detail, I am curious as to what all of you are considering as passing at 18in sash height, and what you are considering as failing.Regards,Brandon S. Chance, M.S., CCHOAssociate Director of Environmental Health and SafetyOffice of Risk ManagementSouthern Methodist UniversityPO Box 750231 | Dallas, TX 75275-0231T) 214.768.2430 | M) 469-978-8664bchance**At_Symbol_Here**smu.edu"‰?| our job in safety is to make the task happen, SAFELY; not to interfere with the work‰?|" Neal Langerman
------------------------------Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 08:11:00 -0400
From: Doug Walters
Subject: Re: Standard Chemical Fume Hood Face VelocitiesWell said Debbie!
Doug
Douglas B. Walters, PhD, FACS
Raleigh NC 27607 USA
On Apr 18, 2016, at 8:31 PM, Debbie M. Decker wrote:
> Oooo " I"m all atwitter " a fume hood question!
>
> In California, 100 fpm is the minimum average face velocity with no point less than 70 fpm (8CCR5154.1). Modern well-engineered fume hoods contain just dandy at 80 to 120 fpm. Over about 125 fpm, there"s too much turbulence for good capture and less than 80 fpm doesn"t contain well, either. At my campus, we"ve standardized on vertical-rising sashes and 100 fpm at an 18" sash height.
>
> Hope this helps,
> Debbie
>
> Debbie M. Decker, CCHO, ACS Fellow
> Immediate Past Chair, Division of Chemical Health and Safety
> University of California, Davis
> (530)754-7964
> (530)304-6728
> dmdecker**At_Symbol_Here**ucdavis.edu
>
> Birkett's hypothesis: "Any chemical reaction that proceeds smoothly
> under normal conditions, can proceed violently in the presence of an
> idiot."
>
>
>
> From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Chance, Brandon
> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 2:32 PM
> To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
> Subject: [DCHAS-L] Standard Chemical Fume Hood Face Velocities
>
> DCHASers,
>
> By a quick show of hands, what face velocity do all of you consider as an acceptable velocity for certifying standard chemical fume hoods in academic and research labs? OSHA is pretty vague on the issue (must provide adequate ventilation [1910.1450(e)(3)(iii)]). Appendix A (non-mandatory) references Prudent Practices, where 80-100 is standard, up to 120 is okay for high hazard (no containment benefit proven) and 60fpm may be okay for low flow, specially designed hoods.
>
> Before getting into too much detail, I am curious as to what all of you are considering as passing at 18in sash height, and what you are considering as failing.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brandon S. Chance, M.S., CCHO
> Associate Director of Environmental Health and Safety Office of Risk
> Management Southern Methodist University PO Box 750231 | Dallas, TX
> 75275-0231
> T) 214.768.2430 | M) 469-978-8664
> bchance**At_Symbol_Here**smu.edu
>
> "‰?| our job in safety is to make the task happen, SAFELY; not to
> interfere with the work‰?|" Neal Langerman
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:46:30 -0400
From: Ralph Stuart
Subject: Public Reports on Hawaii lab explosionhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__khon2.com_2016_04_18_hfd-2Dreleases-2Dinvestigation-2Dreport-2Don-2Duh-2Dmanoa-2Dlab-2Dexplosion_&d=CwIGaQ&c=lb62iw4YL4RFalcE2hQUQealT9-RXrryqt9KZX2qu2s&r=meWM1Buqv4IQ27AlK1OJRjcQl09S1Zta6YXKalY_Io0&m=GWvdVdN_GY4RiNTXnqqXGK4ChVV-9C6OYJvuF_HmYag&s=GtEkdteo214hZylQzvzrzjyNX0XzHKfob_HYtZSGw68&e=
HFD releases investigation report into UH Manoa lab explosion
The Honolulu Fire Department released Monday the investigation report into the cause and origin of a laboratory explosion at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.
The explosion occurred on March 16 in a Hawaii Natural Energy Institute biofuels research laboratory in the Pacific Ocean Science and Technology (POST) building.
A visiting researcher, identified in the report as Thea Ekins-Coward, was injured. The report confirms she lost an arm in the explosion.
....
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.hawaii.edu_news_2016_04_18_investigation-2Dcontinues-2Dinto-2Dlab-2Dexplosion-2Dat-2Duh_&d=CwIGaQ&c=lb62iw4YL4RFalcE2hQUQealT9-RXrryqt9KZX2qu2s&r=meWM1Buqv4IQ27AlK1OJRjcQl09S1Zta6YXKalY_Io0&m=GWvdVdN_GY4RiNTXnqqXGK4ChVV-9C6OYJvuF_HmYag&s=v8m44LDxKBDjUMDzyt-p8vwBkOUJkLXGpful54YTrs4&e=
Investigation continues into lab explosion at UH
The Honolulu Fire Department (HFD) today released a report on its investigation into the March 16, 2016 explosion in the HawaićČi Natural Energy Institute biofuels research laboratory in the University of HawaićČi at M€?noa Pacific Ocean and Science Technology building. The report identifies equipment as the probable cause and recommends further investigation.
"We want to thank fire department for its outstanding work and professionalism for its investigation and the response the night of the accident," said UH M€?noa Vice Chancellor Michael Bruno. The HFDreport has been sent to the University of California Center for Laboratory Safety, which has been retained to conduct an independent investigation and is considered a national leader in laboratory safety.
The UC Center for Laboratory Safety report will be extensive and is expected to be completed by the end of the month.
Shortly after the accident, UH M€?noa"s Environmental Health and Safety Office surveyed the 500-plus labs on the M€?noa campus and determined that no similar experiments like the one involved in the accident were taking place. Other steps are being taken.
"A new safety committee at UH M€?noa is in the process of being convened that will be called the Chemical and Physical Safety Committee," said Bruno. "It will have representatives from all of the schools and colleges that have research and teaching laboratories and will work with other safety-related committees already in existence to identify and implement protocols and processes to further strengthen the safety of our laboratories."
UH leadership is committed to a culture of safety in each and every research and teaching laboratory on our campus.
"I want to reemphasize the importance of ensuring that laboratory safety protocols and training are up-to-date, including ensuring that all equipment is suitable and meets relevant requirements and that emergency access to all laboratories is readily available," said UH M€?noa Chancellor Robert Bley-Vroman in an April 4 message to the UH M€?noa community.
For questions regarding laboratory safety, email or call the Environmental Health and Safety Office at labsafe**At_Symbol_Here**hawaii.edu or 808-956-8660.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 08:15:20 -0400
From: Ralph Stuart
Subject: OSHA April 18 QuickTakes - Chemical Related Enforcement Actionshttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.osha.gov_as_opa_quicktakes_qt041816.html&d=CwIGaQ&c=lb62iw4YL4RFalcE2hQUQealT9-RXrryqt9KZX2qu2s&r=meWM1Buqv4IQ27AlK1OJRjcQl09S1Zta6YXKalY_Io0&m=GWvdVdN_GY4RiNTXnqqXGK4ChVV-9C6OYJvuF_HmYag&s=XwQYaE-GesMJCwGjqGPB2ARo5-tnFC31EIlNzq4uJmg&e=
Louisiana
One worker died and two others were hospitalized after being overcome by a lack of oxygen while cleaning inside a rail tanker. This is the fourth time New Orleans-based employer Dedicated TCS has been cited for the same confined space violations. An OSHA investigation found that the employer failed to: test the atmosphere inside the tanker; require workers to attach a lifeline to their harnesses to allow for rescue; and complete a respiratory protection program. OSHA proposed fines of $226,310. Read the news release for more information.
===
Russell Stover Candies fined $193K, designated 'severe violator,' after ammonia release shuts Kansas plant
Kansas
Hundreds of workers were evacuated from the Russell Stover Candies plant in Iola, Kan., after an air-conditioning unit pipe failed, causing the release of 22 pounds of anhydrous ammonia. None of the workers were injured. OSHA cited the company for 19 violations involving the agency"s process safety management standards when using highly hazardous chemicals. The company faces $193,600 in proposed fines and has been placed in the Severe Violator Enforcement Program. For more information, read the news release.
===
Georgia automotive parts manufacturer faces $145K in fines after flash fire severely burns maintenance technician
Georgia
OSHA has issued citations to Nakanishi Manufacturing Corp. for 20 safety and health violations following the severe injury of a worker in its Winterville, Ga., facility. The 33-year-old worker was operating a dust collector when an explosion occurred. Flames engulfed the man, causing third-degree burns to his upper body. The employee continues to recover from his injuries. "Nakanishi Manufacturing had four previous fires in the dust collection system in Winterville and management knew that the combustible dust hazard was not corrected, yet they continued to let workers operate the system," said William Fulcher, director of OSHA's Atlanta-East Area Office. "Out of sight, out of mind is not an acceptable strategy for fixing workplace hazards." For more information, see the news release.
===
OSHA cites Ohio fertilizer company after worker dies from exposure to manure gas
Ohio
A 31-year-old worker with W. E. Soil Enhancement died from exposure to hydrogen sulfide gas while loading pig manure into trailers for use as fertilizer. OSHA cited the Vickery, Ohio, company for three serious safety violations, which included failing to: provide engineering controls and respiratory protection to protect workers from exposure to hydrogen sulfide gas; develop and train workers on a hazard communication program; and identify and evaluate respiratory hazards. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, agriculture is among the most dangerous occupations in America, with 143 deaths recorded in the industry in 2014. For mor information, see the news brief.
===
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 12:22:23 +0000
From: Wayne Wood
Subject: Re: Standard Chemical Fume Hood Face VelocitiesBeliefs about face velocities have certainly evolved over the years. First we learned that more isn"t necessarily better and in recent years we learned that less isn"t necessarily worse either.
The latest edition of the Canadian Standards Association Z316.5-15 Fume Hoods and Associated Exhaust Systems recognizes that face velocity alone is not a reliable determinant of hood performance and, depending on the conditions of use, a wide range may be acceptable. Here"s a brief table that summarizes what it says:
Face velocity range
Conditions
>.75 m/s (> 150 fpm)
Excessive turbulence
0.65 " 0.75 m/s (120 " 150 fpm)
Potential for turbulence. High cost.
0.5 " 0.6 m/s (100-120 fpm)
Effective but costly
0.4 " 0.5 m/s (80 -100 fpm)
Effective and cost effective
0.3 " 0.4 m/s (60 - 80 fpm)
Effective under ideal conditions
< 0.3 (<60 fpm) standard hood
Not recommended.
< 0.3 (< 60 fpm) high performance hood
Performance tests critical.
I hope you find this helpful.
W.
Wayne Wood | Director, Environmental Health and Safety " Directeur, Sant̩, securit̩ et environnement| McGill University | 3610 rue McTavish Street, 4th floor | Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3A 1Y2 | Tel: (514) 398-2391
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**med.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Ellen M. Sweet
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 6:13 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Standard Chemical Fume Hood Face Velocities
Hi Brandon,
100 fpm is the standard for us. But, we do have some at 80 fpm if they pass a qualitative test with either smoke or dry ice in warm water.
Check out the CHAS website for some resources from the Fume Hood Design Workshop that was held a couple of years ago. It"s under the Technical Resources tab.
SEFA 1 was updated in 2010.
As far at the sash height, we go with 18 inches with a stop installed. I"ve heard of others going as low as 14". We"ve considered this. But, we have too many people who are really tall. The comfortable working height is different for everyone and 18", with instruction to keep the sash between you and your work, seems the most flexible.
Ellen
Ellen Sweet
Laboratory Ventilation Specialist
Department of Environmental Health and Safety Cornell University
315-730-8896
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU] On Behalf Of Chance, Brandon
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 5:32 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: [DCHAS-L] Standard Chemical Fume Hood Face VelocitiesDCHASers,
By a quick show of hands, what face velocity do all of you consider as an acceptable velocity for certifying standard chemical fume hoods in academic and research labs? OSHA is pretty vague on the issue (must provide adequate ventilation [1910.1450(e)(3)(iii)]). Appendix A (non-mandatory) references Prudent Practices, where 80-100 is standard, up to 120 is okay for high hazard (no containment benefit proven) and 60fpm may be okay for low flow, specially designed hoods.
Before getting into too much detail, I am curious as to what all of you are considering as passing at 18in sash height, and what you are considering as failing.
Regards,
Brandon S. Chance, M.S., CCHO
Associate Director of Environmental Health and Safety Office of Risk Management Southern Methodist University PO Box 750231 | Dallas, TX 75275-0231
T) 214.768.2430 | M) 469-978-8664
bchance**At_Symbol_Here**smu.edu"‰?| our job in safety is to make the task happen, SAFELY; not to interfere with the work‰?|" Neal Langerman
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 12:45:07 +0000
From: Dr Bob
Subject: Re: Standard Chemical Fume Hood Face VelocitiesHi Brandon!I have tried to be brief here. I"ve got a lot of data on this question.Taking a larger view, I have found this face velocity question has become a commercial as well as a lab safety issue.Any public institution interested in sustainability needing fume hoods wants competitive bids. Generally speaking, then, the question usually asked is "what face velocity is necessary for a variety of competitive companies to be able to offer low-bid units which will pass ASHRAE 110?"I am in agreement with the 80-120 FPM numbers cited in other responses when this is the actual question. The irony is, if a hood costs more but can get great containment results at, say, 60FPM should it be considered and how does one alter the low-bid context to allow such a hood to be considered? It has been demonstrable for years that more than a few very low exhaust hoods can offer safe containment and show a very low COST OF OWNERSHIP over the hood"s lifetime. This long term view ha!
s, unfortunately, little to do with the way public sector lab exhaust equipment is bid, even given the increasing influence of sustainability.I note several respondents are open to face velocities lower than 80 FPM, provided they work. This is a great start to expanding our safety and commercial philosophies simultaneously.Very Truly Yours,Dr. Bob HaugenDirector of Product and Technology DevelopmentFlow Sciences Inc.2025 Mercantile DriveLeland, NC 28451Phone 910 332 4878From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**med.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Chance, BrandonSent: Monday, April 18, 2016 5:32 PMTo: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDUSubject: [DCHAS-L] Standard Chemical Fume Hood Face VelocitiesDCHASers,By a quick show of hands, what face velocity do all of you consider as an acceptable velocity for certifying standard chemical fume hoods in academic and research labs? OSHA is pretty vague on the issue (must provide adequate ventilation [1910.1450(e)(3)(iii)]). Appendix A (non-mandat!
ory) references Prudent Practices, where 80-100 is standard, up to 120 is okay for high hazard (no containment benefit proven) and 60fpm may be okay for low flow, specially designed hoods.Before getting into too much detail, I am curious as to what all of you are considering as passing at 18in sash height, and what you are considering as failing.Regards,Brandon S. Chance, M.S., CCHOAssociate Director of Environmental Health and SafetyOffice of Risk ManagementSouthern Methodist UniversityPO Box 750231 | Dallas, TX 75275-0231T) 214.768.2430 | M) 469-978-8664bchance**At_Symbol_Here**smu.edu"‰?| our job in safety is to make the task happen, SAFELY; not to interfere with the work‰?|" Neal Langerman________________________________Spam<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__antispam.roaringpenguin.com_canit_b.php-3Fi-3D09QHWLTWU-26m-3D15dc597111f9-26t-3D20160418-26c-3Ds&d=CwIGaQ&c=lb62iw4YL4RFalcE2hQUQealT9-RXrryqt9KZX2qu2s&r=meWM1Buqv4IQ27AlK1OJRjcQl09S1Zta6YXKalY_Io0&m=D6iXMEX82mPer7iIukBpzvFIIi8nF2cCNp1m68TSM94&s=GkwitIchVl!
C6KYVxNTerNmcxyuOR3fZv1u3m0b4RYto&e= >Phish/Fraud<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__antispam.roaringpenguin.com_canit_b.php-3Fi-3D09QHWLTWU-26m-3D15dc597111f9-26t-3D20160418-26c-3Dp&d=CwIGaQ&c=lb62iw4YL4RFalcE2hQUQealT9-RXrryqt9KZX2qu2s&r=meWM1Buqv4IQ27AlK1OJRjcQl09S1Zta6YXKalY_Io0&m=D6iXMEX82mPer7iIukBpzvFIIi8nF2cCNp1m68TSM94&s=FIO6LpQVuRyOH4R7S2D0OO2ASUjxtJPZXdevhWKKOSw&e= >Not spam<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__antispam.roaringpenguin.com_canit_b.php-3Fi-3D09QHWLTWU-26m-3D15dc597111f9-26t-3D20160418-26c-3Dn&d=CwIGaQ&c=lb62iw4YL4RFalcE2hQUQealT9-RXrryqt9KZX2qu2s&r=meWM1Buqv4IQ27AlK1OJRjcQl09S1Zta6YXKalY_Io0&m=D6iXMEX82mPer7iIukBpzvFIIi8nF2cCNp1m68TSM94&s=KvJHqEjRgnHRNevaQIbibQf1EQALFZujkBOsARhgHjE&e= >Forget previous vote<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__antispam.roaringpenguin.com_canit_b.php-3Fi-3D09QHWLTWU-26m-3D15dc597111f9-26t-3D20160418-26c-3Df&d=CwIGaQ&c=lb62iw4YL4RFalcE2hQUQealT9-RXrryqt9KZX2qu2s&r=meWM!
1Buqv4IQ27AlK1OJRjcQl09S1Zta6YXKalY_Io0&m=D6iXMEX82mPer7iIukBpzvFIIi8nF2cCNp1m68TSM94&s=_IvE2TSfQqTIO7W8e4uRr5ZvRCrFZxtwU8M_BgCQ5cU&e= >
------------------------------Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 09:02:07 -0400
From: Monona Rossol
Subject: Re: Standard Chemical Fume Hood Face VelocitiesI'm so jealous I can hardly stand it. I want 125 f/m because I know that no artist, when no one is looking, will allow a piece of glass between them and the bubbling acid etch or whatever else they are doing in the hood. At least with 125 there will be some ventilation while the sash is up above their heads and their heads are in the hood over the baths.
Monona Rossol, M.S., M.F.A., Industrial Hygienist
President: Arts, Crafts & Theater Safety, Inc.
Safety Officer: Local USA829, IATSE
181 Thompson St., #23
New York, NY 10012 212-777-0062
actsnyc**At_Symbol_Here**cs.com www.artscraftstheatersafety.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Louis DiBerardinis
To: DCHAS-L
Sent: Tue, Apr 19, 2016 7:10 am
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Standard Chemical Fume Hood Face VelocitiesDitto. Could not have said it better. See: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cls.ucla.edu_cls-2Dpublications&d=CwIFaQ&c=lb62iw4YL4RFalcE2hQUQealT9-RXrryqt9KZX2qu2s&r=meWM1Buqv4IQ27AlK1OJRjcQl09S1Zta6YXKalY_Io0&m=9h-pCMMk9byWzoziIrpxp08I23-koKH9Xu8MsK2bTYg&s=gSeb7NBiCW-JeHIKYfAcL6HseMd1FWYzMQQ68QgcOJE&e= for more info on lab ventilation.
Lou DiBerardinis, CIH, CSP
Director, EHS Office
MIT
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**med.cornell.edu]On Behalf Of Debbie M. Decker
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 8:31 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Standard Chemical Fume Hood Face Velocities
Oooo " I"m all atwitter " a fume hood question!
In California, 100 fpm is the minimum average face velocity with no point less than 70 fpm (8CCR5154.1). Modern well-engineered fume hoods contain just dandy at 80 to 120 fpm. Over about 125 fpm, there"s too much turbulence for good capture and less than 80 fpm doesn"t contain well, either. At my campus, we"ve standardized on vertical-rising sashes and 100 fpm at an 18" sash height.
Hope this helps,
Debbie
Debbie M. Decker, CCHO, ACS Fellow
Immediate Past Chair, Division of Chemical Health and Safety University of California, Davis
(530)754-7964
(530)304-6728
dmdecker**At_Symbol_Here**ucdavis.edu
Birkett's hypothesis: "Any chemical reaction that proceeds smoothly under normal conditions, can proceed violently in the presence of an idiot."
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU]On Behalf Of Chance, Brandon
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 2:32 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: [DCHAS-L] Standard Chemical Fume Hood Face Velocities
DCHASers,
By a quick show of hands, what face velocity do all of you consider as an acceptable velocity for certifying standard chemical fume hoods in academic and research labs? OSHA is pretty vague on the issue (must provide adequate ventilation [1910.1450(e)(3)(iii)]). Appendix A (non-mandatory) references Prudent Practices, where 80-100 is standard, up to 120 is okay for high hazard (no containment benefit proven) and 60fpm may be okay for low flow, specially designed hoods.
Before getting into too much detail, I am curious as to what all of you are considering as passing at 18in sash height, and what you are considering as failing.
Regards,
Brandon S. Chance, M.S., CCHO
Associate Director of Environmental Health and Safety
Office of Risk Management
Southern Methodist University
PO Box 750231 | Dallas, TX 75275-0231
T) 214.768.2430 | M) 469-978-8664
bchance**At_Symbol_Here**smu.edu
"‰?| our job in safety is to make the task happen, SAFELY; not to interfere with the work‰?|" Neal Langerman
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 12:39:17 -0700
From: Jyllian Kemsley
Subject: Re: Public Reports on Hawaii lab explosionC&EN's story just went up, too:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cen.acs.org_articles_94_web_2016_04_Spark-2Dpressure-2Dgauge-2Dcaused-2DUniversity.html&d=CwIFaQ&c=lb62iw4YL4RFalcE2hQUQealT9-RXrryqt9KZX2qu2s&r=meWM1Buqv4IQ27AlK1OJRjcQl09S1Zta6YXKalY_Io0&m=ezzRzlqSkV3VfBi5RFnfTFSZxK6zKJCtuRPaO-J09Jg&s=grPUPbmBGjG4qPaJJ4TEFzFQbhXGtYyz0x_fvXaXvGg&e=
I linked to a longer report than KHON--I included the FD incident information as well.
Jyllian
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 4:46 AM, Ralph Stuart
wrote:>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__khon2.com_2016_04_
> 18_hfd-2Dreleases-2Dinvestigation-2Dreport-2Don-2Duh-2Dmanoa-2Dlab-2De
> xplosion_&d=CwIFaQ&c=lb62iw4YL4RFalcE2hQUQealT9-RXrryqt9KZX2qu2s&r=meW
> M1Buqv4IQ27AlK1OJRjcQl09S1Zta6YXKalY_Io0&m=ezzRzlqSkV3VfBi5RFnfTFSZxK6
> zKJCtuRPaO-J09Jg&s=NtqUEksbu5nmBZHIAdcteu4hFe4YdllNMs16hoQ8J8A&e=
>
> HFD releases investigation report into UH Manoa lab explosion
>
> The Honolulu Fire Department released Monday the investigation report
> into the cause and origin of a laboratory explosion at the University
> of Hawaii at Manoa.
>
> The explosion occurred on March 16 in a Hawaii Natural Energy
> Institute biofuels research laboratory in the Pacific Ocean Science
> and Technology
> (POST) building.
>
> A visiting researcher, identified in the report as Thea Ekins-Coward,
> was injured. The report confirms she lost an arm in the explosion.
> ...
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.hawaii.edu_new
> s_2016_04_18_investigation-2Dcontinues-2Dinto-2Dlab-2Dexplosion-2Dat-2
> Duh_&d=CwIFaQ&c=lb62iw4YL4RFalcE2hQUQealT9-RXrryqt9KZX2qu2s&r=meWM1Buq
> v4IQ27AlK1OJRjcQl09S1Zta6YXKalY_Io0&m=ezzRzlqSkV3VfBi5RFnfTFSZxK6zKJCt
> uRPaO-J09Jg&s=9BrYEKWcnRja9EtjLrpY6wj-5aR7wxZtACAZuPLo6Tc&e=
>
> Investigation continues into lab explosion at UH
>
> The Honolulu Fire Department (HFD) today released a report on its
> investigation into the March 16, 2016 explosion in the HawaićČi Natural
> Energy Institute biofuels research laboratory in the University of
> HawaićČi at M€?noa Pacific Ocean and Science Technology building. The
> report identifies equipment as the probable cause and recommends
> further investigation.
>
> "We want to thank fire department for its outstanding work and
> professionalism for its investigation and the response the night of
> the accident," said UH M€?noa Vice Chancellor Michael Bruno. The
> HFDreport has been sent to the University of California Center for
> Laboratory Safety, which has been retained to conduct an independent
> investigation and is considered a national leader in laboratory safety.
>
> The UC Center for Laboratory Safety report will be extensive and is
> expected to be completed by the end of the month.
>
> Shortly after the accident, UH M€?noa"s Environmental Health and Safety
> Office surveyed the 500-plus labs on the M€?noa campus and determined
> that no similar experiments like the one involved in the accident were
> taking place. Other steps are being taken.
>
> "A new safety committee at UH M€?noa is in the process of being
> convened that will be called the Chemical and Physical Safety
> Committee," said Bruno. "It will have representatives from all of the
> schools and colleges that have research and teaching laboratories and
> will work with other safety-related committees already in existence to
> identify and implement protocols and processes to further strengthen
> the safety of our laboratories."
>
> UH leadership is committed to a culture of safety in each and every
> research and teaching laboratory on our campus.
>
> "I want to reemphasize the importance of ensuring that laboratory
> safety protocols and training are up-to-date, including ensuring that
> all equipment is suitable and meets relevant requirements and that
> emergency access to all laboratories is readily available," said UH
> M€?noa Chancellor Robert Bley-Vroman in an April 4 message to the UH M€?noa community.
>
> For questions regarding laboratory safety, email or call the
> Environmental Health and Safety Office at labsafe**At_Symbol_Here**hawaii.edu or 808-956-8660.
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 16:29:23 -0400
From: Ralph Stuart
Subject: Ask the Innovators: What should Green Chemistry Education look like?https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.magnetmail.net_actions_email-5Fweb-5Fversion.cfm-3Frecipient-5Fid-3D1777553824-26message-5Fid-3D12681021-26user-5Fid-3DACS1-26group-5Fid-3D968471-26jobid-3D33338024&d=CwIGaQ&c=lb62iw4YL4RFalcE2hQUQealT9-RXrryqt9KZX2qu2s&r=meWM1Buqv4IQ27AlK1OJRjcQl09S1Zta6YXKalY_Io0&m=GWvdVdN_GY4RiNTXnqqXGK4ChVV-9C6OYJvuF_HmYag&s=rZWXyk4tnoS6sXXnZq8RfKrFEOB9WBg3Fm8dQE2qwOQ&e=
From: ACS Green Chemistry Institute
Subject: Ask the Innovators: What should Green Chemistry Education look like?
Date: April 19, 2016 at 10:31:10 AM EDTAsk the Innovators: What should Green Chemistry Education look like?
Date: April 25th
Time: 2 " 3:30 p.m. EDT
Join us on Monday, April 25th on the Green Chemistry Innovation Portal to discuss the future of green chemistry education. What will it look like? What should be taught? What skills do employers want graduates to have? We need you"educators, industry, and students"to weigh in.
During this online event, you will have the opportunity to ask questions and give feedback to the Green Chemistry Education Roadmap Leadership Team. The Roadmap is a community-driven project to focus and coordinate efforts to integrate green chemistry principles into the chemistry curriculum. The team is specifically seeking input on a vision statement and green chemistry competencies. For background information watch the short video introduction and visit the Green Chemistry Education Roadmap website.
To participate: Go to the forum and watch the short video introduction. You can post your question or comment any time before or during the event, but we encourage you to come back at 2:00 pm ET on Monday, April 25th to discuss live with the team. You can also participate by taking the short survey posted on the site.
Thanks,
The ACS Green Chemistry Instituteĺ¨ Team
The Green Chemistry Innovation Portal is a joint project of the
and the
ACS Green Chemistry Institute ĺ¨ | 1155 Sixteenth Street, NW | Washington, DC 20036 Copyright ĺ© 2016 American Chemical Society All rights reserved.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 21:33:28 -0400
From: Peter Zavon
Subject: Re: Standard Chemical Fume Hood Face VelocitiesYes, a hood can have good containment with only 60 fpm face velocity, but that can be reliably achieved only with extremely good design and maintenance of the entire room in which the hood is placed. In my opinion, simply buying a hood that claims to demonstrate good containment at 60 fpm, without reference to the details of its intended location, is folly.
Peter Zavon, CIH
Penfield, NY
PZAVON**At_Symbol_Here**Rochester.rr.com
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**med.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Dr Bob
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 8:45 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Standard Chemical Fume Hood Face Velocities
Hi Brandon!
I have tried to be brief here. I"ve got a lot of data on this question.
Taking a larger view, I have found this face velocity question has become a commercial as well as a lab safety issue.
Any public institution interested in sustainability needing fume hoods wants competitive bids. Generally speaking, then, the question usually asked is "what face velocity is necessary for a variety of competitive companies to be able to offer low-bid units which will pass ASHRAE 110?"
I am in agreement with the 80-120 FPM numbers cited in other responses when this is the actual question. The irony is, if a hood costs more but can get great containment results at, say, 60FPM should it be considered and how does one alter the low-bid context to allow such a hood to be considered? It has been demonstrable for years that more than a few very low exhaust hoods can offer safe containment and show a very low COST OF OWNERSHIP over the hood"s lifetime. This long term view has, unfortunately, little to do with the way public sector lab exhaust equipment is bid, even given the increasing influence of sustainability.
I note several respondents are open to face velocities lower than 80 FPM, provided they work. This is a great start to expanding our safety and commercial philosophies simultaneously.
Very Truly Yours,
Dr. Bob Haugen
Director of Product and Technology Development
Flow Sciences Inc.
2025 Mercantile Drive
Leland, NC 28451
Phone 910 332 4878
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**med.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Chance, Brandon
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 5:32 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: [DCHAS-L] Standard Chemical Fume Hood Face Velocities
DCHASers,
By a quick show of hands, what face velocity do all of you consider as an acceptable velocity for certifying standard chemical fume hoods in academic and research labs? OSHA is pretty vague on the issue (must provide adequate ventilation [1910.1450(e)(3)(iii)]). Appendix A (non-mandatory) references Prudent Practices, where 80-100 is standard, up to 120 is okay for high hazard (no containment benefit proven) and 60fpm may be okay for low flow, specially designed hoods.
Before getting into too much detail, I am curious as to what all of you are considering as passing at 18in sash height, and what you are considering as failing.
Regards,
Brandon S. Chance, M.S., CCHO
Associate Director of Environmental Health and Safety
Office of Risk Management
Southern Methodist University
PO Box 750231 | Dallas, TX 75275-0231
T) 214.768.2430 | M) 469-978-8664
bchance**At_Symbol_Here**smu.edu"‰?| our job in safety is to make the task happen, SAFELY; not to interfere with the work‰?|" Neal Langerman
_____
Spam <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__antispam.roaringpenguin.com_canit_b.php-3Fi-3D09QHWLTWU-26m-3D15dc597111f9-26t-3D20160418-26c-3Ds&d=CwMGaQ&c=lb62iw4YL4RFalcE2hQUQealT9-RXrryqt9KZX2qu2s&r=meWM1Buqv4IQ27AlK1OJRjcQl09S1Zta6YXKalY_Io0&m=D6iXMEX82mPer7iIukBpzvFIIi8nF2cCNp1m68TSM94&s=GkwitIchVlC6KYVxNTerNmcxyuOR3fZv1u3m0b4RYto&e=>
Phish/Fraud <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__antispam.roaringpenguin.com_canit_b.php-3Fi-3D09QHWLTWU-26m-3D15dc597111f9-26t-3D20160418-26c-3Dp&d=CwMGaQ&c=lb62iw4YL4RFalcE2hQUQealT9-RXrryqt9KZX2qu2s&r=meWM1Buqv4IQ27AlK1OJRjcQl09S1Zta6YXKalY_Io0&m=D6iXMEX82mPer7iIukBpzvFIIi8nF2cCNp1m68TSM94&s=FIO6LpQVuRyOH4R7S2D0OO2ASUjxtJPZXdevhWKKOSw&e=>
Not spam <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__antispam.roaringpenguin.com_canit_b.php-3Fi-3D09QHWLTWU-26m-3D15dc597111f9-26t-3D20160418-26c-3Dn&d=CwMGaQ&c=lb62iw4YL4RFalcE2hQUQealT9-RXrryqt9KZX2qu2s&r=meWM1Buqv4IQ27AlK1OJRjcQl09S1Zta6YXKalY_Io0&m=D6iXMEX82mPer7iIukBpzvFIIi8nF2cCNp1m68TSM94&s=KvJHqEjRgnHRNevaQIbibQf1EQALFZujkBOsARhgHjE&e=>
Forget previous vote <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__antispam.roaringpenguin.com_canit_b.php-3Fi-3D09QHWLTWU-26m-3D15dc597111f9-26t-3D20160418-26c-3Df&d=CwMGaQ&c=lb62iw4YL4RFalcE2hQUQealT9-RXrryqt9KZX2qu2s&r=meWM1Buqv4IQ27AlK1OJRjcQl09S1Zta6YXKalY_Io0&m=D6iXMEX82mPer7iIukBpzvFIIi8nF2cCNp1m68TSM94&s=_IvE2TSfQqTIO7W8e4uRr5ZvRCrFZxtwU8M_BgCQ5cU&e=>
------------------------------
End of DCHAS-L Digest - 18 Apr 2016 to 19 Apr 2016 (#2016-96)
*************************************************************
________________________________
This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary, privileged and/or private information. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity designated above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender immediately, and delete the message and any attachments. Any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other use of this message or any attachments by an individual or entity other than the intended recipient is prohibited.
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post
