Check out Safety Emporium for your N95, N99, and face shield needs.
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 07:41:00 -0500
Reply-To: Ralph Stuart <rstuart**At_Symbol_Here**UVM.EDU>
Sender: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Ralph Stuart <rstuart**At_Symbol_Here**UVM.EDU>
Subject: 16 Re: [DCHAS-L] Fume hood flow indicators
Comments: To: c2e2**At_Symbol_Here**list.uvm.edu
Based on the range of responses I received to yesterday's inquiry
about fume hood flow indicators, it's clear that this is unsettled
question (except where regulators have written specific technologies
into code in specific jurisdictions).
I probably didn't make clear enough that our intent is to improve our
fume training by simplifying our message. A campuswide retrofit of 400
hoods is not in the cards. Our current training approach has been in
place in various forms for at least 10 years and we aren't seeing any
improvement in hood use practices (which is not to say that many UVM
people don't use them well). We are seeing some serious problems,
particularly in terms of poor hood practices and unnecessary energy
use (these poor practices are often inspired by the alarm systems we
do have in place). As an article in C&EN recently suggested, I
believe that laboratory workers are going to need to address the
energy issue relative to hoods fairly soon as concerns over greenhouse
gas emissions intensify.
One other caveat: I am talking in terms of "generic lab hoods" on our
campus. I recognize that there are some chemical processes that
require specific protective ventilation and such systems would not be
included in the "fancy kimwipe" approach.
Anyway, thanks for everyone for their response and I'd be glad to hear
more peoples' thoughts.
- Ralph
From: ACTSNYC**At_Symbol_Here**cs.com
Date: February 7, 2008 2:01:30 PM EST (CA)
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Fume hood flow indicators
In the art and theater departments, I try to get them to buy a
Velometer--the Alnor type that doesn't need batteries and can go a
long time without calibration. I teach them to use it and then they
can really check their own air flow.
Monona
==
From: Dan Crowl
Date: February 7, 2008 1:58:36 PM EST (CA)
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Fume hood flow indicators
Hi Ralph,
We use the red ink manometer types - they cost a lost less than the
electronic units and can't be disabled and don't send out alarms.
Dan Crowl
Michigan Tech
==
From: "Debbie M. Decker"
Date: February 7, 2008 2:11:08 PM EST (CA)
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Fume hood flow indicators
Ralph:
It is now a regulatory requirement that all fume hoods (no
grandfathering) have a visual/audible alarm and that users are trained
on what the alarms mean. We've been installing monitors on our fume
hoods, here, for about 10 years so compliance hasn't been too onerous.
But it is taking time to get old hoods retrofitted. About 250 to
retrofit out of about 1600 hoods.
I agree with the requirement myself. Though I have seen a pipette tip
jammed into the "mute" button on the alarm to shut it up when the hood
is operated incorrectly .
Debbie
==
From: Georjean Adams
Date: February 7, 2008 11:13:54 AM EST (CA)
To: Ralph Stuart
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Fume hood flow indicators
I'm interested in your thoughts:
I am on the ACS Board Committee for Environmental Improvement and am
going to propose at our New Orleans meeting that CEI sponsor a broad
collaborative program of compiling and disseminating best practices,
identifying technology development needs, educating all members of ACS
plus schools and industry, maybe even tracking some metric to show
improvement in correct use of fume hoods.
I assume DCHAS would be a major contributor to the effort. Do you
think it has potential? Does the chemical enterprise need it? Would
it generate some energy in the ACS membership? Would people in DCHAS
be willing to actually work it?
Seems like such a concrete, cross-membership endeavor that could show
some real short term benefits to safety and energy reduction and would
be more rewarding than some of the high-falutin' policy statements CEI
normally works on.
Not that I am an expert on hoods. Far from it. (In fact, I'm a policy
wonk who's never worked in a lab!) And I'm not positioned to directly
manage a big program ( a lone, part-time consultant in chemical
management issues who can't travel to meetings all over).
Thanks!
Georjean
--
EHS Strategies, Inc.
- enabling organizations to meet their EHS vision
www.ehsstrategies.com
651-204-3371
==
From: "Greene, Benjamin (WSTF-RF)[JTI]"
Date: February 7, 2008 11:55:54 AM EST (CA)
Subject: RE: [DCHAS-L] Fume hood flow indicators
Hi Ralph - telltale flags on all hoods is a must, and depending on the
geometry of the lab the use of hemispherical mirrors to be able to
tell if the hoods are working when looking in through a window (if you
have them).
I agree that the flow alarms may not be reliable and it is sometimes
unclear what they are sensing (static pressure, flow, etc.).
Ultimately you can end up with either silenced alarms or alarms that
don't alarm when they are supposed to, not to mention alarms that go
off when they aren't supposed to. So to have a good alarm program you
have to have the maintenance to go along with it.
Ben
==
From: "Hadden, Susan [PRDUS]"
Date: February 7, 2008 1:03:25 PM EST (CA)
To: "Ralph Stuart"
Subject: RE: [DCHAS-L] Fume hood flow indicators
It's really a behavior issue. Why would they pay attention to a
telltale and not an alarm? At least the alarm is annoying enough to
attract their attention. I would suggest installing the alarms and
training the individuals as to what it means. Then put a sign next to
the alarm that explains what it means (ie If the alarm is going off,
the hood may not be protecting you). Or consider making it so that
they can not turn off the alarm but must have Maintenance respond to
reset it. That will really annoy them but will allow Maintenance to
evaluate actual hood performance when resetting the alarm. Or, if
possible, have a simultaneous alarm in the Maintenance monitoring area
that indicates an alarm has gone off.
I work at a large pharma company and we have some folks who disable
their alarms too. But we do quarterly lab inspections and check for
that. We also try to continually educate as to how the hoods work and
why a sufficient flow rate is needed to protect them.
==
From: "Harry J. Elston"
Date: February 7, 2008 11:34:02 AM EST (CA)
To: Ralph Stuart
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Fume hood flow indicators
Ralph,
I think you're going to run into problems with NFPA 45 and ANSI Z9.5:
6-8.7.1: A flow monitor shall be installed on each new laboratory hood.
6-8.7.2: A flow monitor shall also be installed on existing laboratory
hoods whenever any modifications or changes are made that can affect
laboratory ventilation or the airflow through existing laboratories.
That's from the 1996 version, the only one here I have at the day job.
I don't have a copy of ANSI Z9.5 here with me at the day job, but I
would wager that the most recent version has something to say about
that.
One of the hangups is "flow" - not d/p across the hood wall. The only
product that I've seen measure actual flow is am in-duct "Flow Cross"
that Swiki Anderson uses.
Harry
Harry J. Elston, Ph.D., CIH
Principal
Midwest Chemical Safety, LLC
www.midwestchemsafety.com
Editor, Chemical Health & Safety
http://membership.acs.org/c/chas/
==
From: "Haugen, Bob"
Date: February 7, 2008 2:42:23 PM EST (CA)
Subject: RE: [DCHAS-L] Fume hood flow indicators
Ralph:
I respectfully disagree.
Of course, our company makes alarms as well as fume hoods, but "tell
tales" are affected by humidity, and are difficult to calibrate.
If lab folks are having trouble understanding electric alarms, you
might consider a safety seminar (or PowerPoint Video) explaining how
to use the hoods and safety alarms. Also, standardizing on a certain
model campus-wide might help.
Regards,
Dr. Bob Haugen
KEWAUNEE SCIENTIFIC
==
From: "Janet Baum"
Date: February 7, 2008 11:45:40 AM EST (CA)
Subject: RE: [DCHAS-L] Fume hood flow indicators
Dear Ralph, As I understand this issue, it is a legal requirement in
the "Right To Know" law that chemical fume hoods have electronic flow
alarm system installed. Consult the General Counsel for your
university before proceeding.
Further, it is also a matter of training and education of bench
scientists/laboratory workers in the care and use of these devices
instead of disabling the alarm system for their immediate convenience
and gratification.
Your operating and/or engineering groups who maintain building
ventilation systems should be engaged with the laboratory manager and
EHS staff to investigate incidents of false-alarms, or fluctuations in
flows that legitimately set off alarms.
Janet Baum, AIA
Health, Education + Research Associates, Inc.
==
From: Jennifer Minogue
Date: February 7, 2008 11:02:06 AM EST (CA)
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Fume hood flow indicators
The Ontario Fire Code requires alarms so we are stuck with them.
However, I think most of them work OK. We also have many fume hoods
retrofitted with "Ventalerts" which get checked once per year and have
a battery change at the same time. These are on old hoods that didn't
have alarms on them when installed.
I find the stack affect can fool the user into thinking the fume hood
is operating when it is not. Pilot lights can also fool you - burned
out or, in one case, the light was on but the fire damper had shut due
to corrosion so the fan was running but there was no draw.
Cheers,
Jennifer
Jennifer Minogue
Biosafety Officer
Environmental Health and Safety
University of Guelph
Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1 Canada
Voice 519-824-4120-x53190
Fax 519-824-0364
==
From: "Laurence Doemeny"
Date: February 7, 2008 12:26:18 PM EST (CA)
Subject: FW: [DCHAS-L] Fume hood flow indicators
Hi Ralph,
We had bubble gum lights and alarms outside each lab bank that would
go off should the airflow fall below a preset level. It was also
connected to our Johnson controls facility management system. The
audio alarm could be switched off but the gumball lights kept running
until maintenance reset them. This system was useful during routine
maintenance too, although during those occasions announcements were
sent to all building occupants. If you are interested, I can give you
the name of the facilities engineer for you to contact.
Larry
==
From: "Peter Reinhardt"
Date: February 7, 2008 4:48:47 PM EST (CA)
To: "'Ralph Stuart'"
Subject: FW: [DCHAS-L] Fume hood flow indicators
Ralph,
Magnehelic gauges on all hoods! The users need to know what's
happening with the latest technology. I wouldn't want to rely on a
Kimwipe in court testimony.
With all due respect to your great wisdom, I think you are going
backwards on your fume hood program. Hoods are the primary means of
reducing lab exposures. They need to work properly, the users need to
know how to determine that, and EHS needs to verify that. Users need
training.
There is NO TOXILOGICAL DATA for most chemicals used in labs. Many of
these people will spend their lives working in a lab. Small chronic
exposures is a huge risk to them.
Training, not Kimwipes!
Pete
==
From: "R Alton Simpson (asimpson)"
Date: February 7, 2008 2:33:35 PM EST (CA)
To: Ralph Stuart
Subject: FW: [DCHAS-L] Fume hood flow indicators
We have relatively good experience with the digital flow meters. I
would not want to go back to a more qualitative system. We inform
people about the system during in person training, and we have an on-
line tutorial at http://ehs.memphis.edu/HoodTutorial.ppt.
Al
Alton Simpson, CHMM, NRCC-CHO
Director, Environmental Health and Safety
The University of Memphis
216 Browning Hall
Memphis, TN 38152-3340
(901) 678-4672 fax (901) 678-4673
http://ehs.memphis.edu
==
From: "Rincon, Katherine"
Date: February 7, 2008 11:25:25 AM EST (CA)
To: "Ralph Stuart"
Subject: RE: [DCHAS-L] Fume hood flow indicators
Hello Mr. Stuart:
We have the same problem with the electronic flow alarms for our fume
hoods as well; and using the Kimwipe doesn't give a flow rate. We use
the No. 480 Vaneometer Air Velocity Meter by Dwyer; the user spot
checks the hood to verify the flow. We placed them in every fume
hood. We start using them for the fume hoods that did not have any
type of electronic alarm but then we started having problems with the
ones that did due to calibration problems. Also, the Fire Marshals
wanted us to provide some kind of visual aid to indicate that the
hoods were working. Every lab that has a fume hood gets a meter. One
meter is enough to check several hoods in the lab. And of course, it
is used only for spot checks by the hood user. It costs around $25.00.
Best regards,
Kathy
Katherine Rincon
Chemical Hygiene Manager
Environmental Health & Safety
University of Texas at El Paso
(915) 747-8135
(915) 747-8126 fax
==
From: "Robin M. Izzo"
Date: February 7, 2008 1:51:36 PM EST (CA)
Subject: Re: [C2E2-L] Fume hood flow indicators
Ralph,
We require a magnehelic gauge or a digital flow readout, but without
alarms. Our experience is similar to yours - the students will find a
way to silence them forever.
- Robin
Robin M. Izzo
Associate Director, EHS
Princeton University
609-258-6259 (office)
The purpose of life is to live it, to taste experience to the utmost, to
reach out eagerly and without fear for newer and richer experience.
-Eleanor Roosevelt
==
From: Stanley K Lengerich
Date: February 7, 2008 4:58:31 PM EST (CA)
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Fume hood flow indicators
Hi Ralph,
I read a lot of DCHAS messages, but this is the first one I've felt
strongly compelled to respond to. I would highly discourage you from
taking the route you have proposed regarding face velocity monitors.
My concern would be that the qualitative telltale would be understood
even less by the user, and it wouldn't have the necessary sensitivity
to measure when flows have dropped out of a safe range. Also, I would
think that it probably doesn't meet the spirit and intent of the OSHA
(Federal) Lab Standard requirements for monitoring fume hoods.
It is true that too much information can confuse the fume hood user.
We previously had a lot of monitors displaying the flow in feet per
minute, and that created too much confusion for the user. For that
reason we have been transitioning to monitors that use a safe/unsafe
(green light/red light) indication, and the red light is accompanied
by an audible alarm. The audible alarm is silenceable, but if the
alarm condition is not satisfied within 10 minutes, it automatically
reactivates (the red light always stays on during an alarm condition).
We find that this strikes a reasonable balance of warning vs. nuisance
so that the users don't try to defeat the audible alarm. The simpler,
universally-recognized, green/red warning system is easy to understand
and easy to train on, and it still provides the necessary measurement
sensitivity.
Best Regards,
Stan Lengerich, CIH
Engineering Consultant
Eli Lilly and Company
Indianapolis, IN 46285
Ralph Stuart, CIH
Environmental Safety Manager
University of Vermont
Environmental Safety Facility
667 Spear St. Burlington, VT 05405
rstuart**At_Symbol_Here**uvm.edu
fax: (802)656-5407
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post