Morning Roundtables

Wednesday and Thursday mornings began with coffee, breakfast, and a discussion about emerging topics in laboratory sustainability. The Labs21 2010 Annual Conference agenda features Morning Roundtables to provide an opportunity for discussion on the ideas and challenges faced by some of today's high-performance facilities.

Wednesday, September 29

Thursday, September 30


Wednesday, September 29
8 – 9 a.m.

Global Sustainable Laboratory Network International Benchmarking Initiative

The Global Sustainable Laboratory Network is an active group of
international experts and organizations committed to working together
on specific laboratory topics. During the past year, the group met several times via the Internet (Skype) to develop its first target of collaboration:
laboratory energy benchmarking guidelines. The group will convene for a
meeting at the Labs21 2010 Annual Conference to take up discussions
on creating agreed definitions and metrics on benchmarking using the
Labs21 Energy Benchmarking Tool to help guide the discussion toward a global system of terms and metrics.

 

Retro-Commissioning in a Large Multi-Building Research and Academic Campus

Led by:

  • Pieter van der Mersch, University of Colorado at Boulder

In his presentation, the author will describe a low-cost approach to retro-commission buildings in a campus with over 100 buildings of significant size that are being used for offices, classrooms, and laboratories. This work, spanning over six years, has resulted in a 2 to 5 percent reduction in energy use per building per year, about a 30 percent reduction in service calls, about a 25 percent reduction in maintenance costs, and a reduction in emergency calls to nearly zero. It has also set the basis for an improved preventive maintenance program.

 

Challenging Space Requirements—A Win Win Situation!

Led by:

  • Peter Jackson, Health Protection Agency
  • Hilary Jeffery, DEGW

This presentation will focus on ensuring that laboratory and space requirements requested by users are in line with what they really need. All too often, when users are asked what space they need, they look at what space they have at the present time and ask for that, not thinking ahead on how science and technology are advancing and how their workplace may change in the next five to 10 years. Home working, flexible schedules, and wireless working are transforming the workplace and will have a direct impact on the space we require for laboratories and offices in the future. In sustainability terms this is a win-win situation: the more we can reduce the office and laboratory space required, the more sustainable the project becomes as the reduction directly affects the carbon footprint of developments as well as building and operating costs. This roundtable will explore how actual needs vary from perceived needs and how evaluation work can be carried out to establish these real needs. Some benchmarking results will be presented to show the enormous savings in capital, operating costs, and associated carbon reductions that can be made and how workplace efficiency can be improved.

 

Assessing Architectural Innovation for Whole Building Lifecycle Sustainability—What is Effective for Users?

Led by:

  • Alison McDougall-Well, University of Cambridge

Specific architectural innovations for flexible interdisciplinary bench laboratories are often radical and are becoming increasingly popular (ranging from flexible modular casework and servicing strategies to connectivity strategies such as bridges, atriums, and collaborative spaces as well as specific LEED criteria such as daylighting). Ms. McDougall-Well will present a matrix based on the results of several pilot case studies at a number of United States and United Kingdom bio- and nano-science laboratories into the user's experience (from bench scientists to facilities managers) of these innovations. Research into purpose-built laboratory facilities is benchmarked with converted laboratories in use.

The user's experience provides a novel source of data for assessing which of the architectural features are more effective in facilitating bench research and institutional flexibility. This research fits well with the Labs21 ethos of whole building sustainability; sustainability here focuses on the long-term lifecycle of the building as a flexible instrument for advancing science with the minimum possible disruption to the fabric of the building when, for example, changing research focus or discipline, or adding visiting scientists or teams. This approach is leading edge in that it is observational and based on assessment of a building’s architectural features in use from a human-centred perspective.

This roundtable will engage stakeholders from every part of the commissioning, design, and use process and ask for their input on architectural innovations and their effect on management of and scientific practice in these buildings. This roundtable will seek to elicit perspectives on the issue of architectural innovations to shape the specific aspects to be observed during the longer term case studies in 2011 and, therefore, to tailor the focus of the case studies more specifically to the needs of stakeholders.

 

Thursday, September 30
8 – 9 a.m.

EPC/LEED Discussion

Led By:

  • Paul Matthew, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
  • Kath Williams, I2SL
  • Phil Wirdzek, I2SL

More information coming soon.

 

Smart Sample Storage: Research Imperative Meets Energy Management

Led By:

  • Allen Doyle, University of California, Davis

A large research university may have over 500 temperature controlled rooms, 800 to 1,000 ultra-low freezers, and thousands of other standard freezers and refrigerators. The energy and maintenance bill may total $2 to $4 million annually, yet these storehouses of priceless samples are maintained and powered "for free" and with decentralized accountability. This can lead to meltdowns when freezers or environmental rooms fail and samples are compromised.

During this Morning Roundtable, Mr. Doyle will lead a discussion on a work in progress at the University of California, Davis. This campaign attempts to systematically meet scientists' need for precious sample preservation, while also attempting to motivate sample management and low-energy storage methods.

In advance of this roundtable, Mr. Doyle is seeking input from the laboratory community on the following questions:

  • How does your university or company manage its samples in an energy efficient manner?
  • Are there management goals and incentives that support alternatives to frozen storage and motivate scientists to clear out expired or unknown samples?
  • Is -20°C, -60°C, or -70°C adequate for frozen storage, or have manufacturers driven freezer temperatures to -80°C?

Submit responses to labs21@i2sl.org.

 

Winning the Cold War with Room Temperature Biological Sample Storage

Led By:

  • Susan Vargas, Stanford University

This morning roundtable session will first review the findings of a pilot study of room temperature biological sample storage technology at Stanford University. The goals of the pilot were to: 1) evaluate the energy and environmental benefits of room temperature technology as an alternative to ultra-low temperature freezers for preserving biological samples, 2) allow a diverse group of laboratories to gain practical experience with transferring samples from freezers into room temperature storage, and 3) generate a forecast of the potential costs and benefits of switching to room temperature storage technology for samples currently being addressed (DNA and RNA) campus-wide.

Based on the favorable results of the study, Stanford has invested in a campaign to encourage rapid adoption of room temperature sample storage technology in the School of Medicine and Department of Biology. The remainder of the technical session will describe development, implementation, and the first year of results from a program of peer-based education and financial incentives aimed at jump-starting a revolution in the way biological samples are preserved for future research use.

Developing a Laboratory Classification System to Differentiate Laboratory Design Requirements

Led By:

  • J. Patrick Carpenter, AIA, LEED AP, Facility Performance Engineers

Conventional wisdom and general practice often dominate multiple aspects of the design of many laboratories. But what really drives those conventions and practices is often built on questionable assumptions or misunderstood requirements.

Many laboratory activities are necessarily uncertain, involve a wide range of needs and risks, and continuously evolve according to industry, regulatory, and technology changes. This is the nature of "science" and its exploration. Demands for flexibility often accompany these fundamental drivers of laboratory design. Expectations of "flexible laboratories" are intensified by needs to address the expectations of diverse users and their unique requirements.

Laboratory users and designers all too often try to create the best laboratory module that can be all things to all users, but there are many prices to be paid for such "ultimate" solutions—more space, more hoods, more bench, more ventilation, and inevitably greater first cost and more operating costs.

In the names of ultimate safety and ultimate flexibility or sometimes just as a solution to problems and needs that never materialize, many projects create conservative and over-designed solutions.

Many of the "standards" of criteria and design approaches for laboratories are based on generic definitions of laboratory use and activity. They normally use conservative objectives to "safely" cover a very large variety of activities. However, spaces that are called "laboratory" represent an incredibly diverse spectrum of needs, activities, and risks. Laboratory designers and users need a more precise way of defining the scale of their needs to help differentiate laboratory requirements in sufficiently specific terms that can offer more focused, appropriate, and cost effective solutions.

If a system of broadly defined parameters could be developed that captures the essentials of risks and the effectiveness of various types of solutions, laboratory designs could be much more appropriately responsive to real needs.

By doing this, designers and owners could avoid much of the conservatism and corresponding installation and operational costs necessitated by increasing quantities of airflows, containment devices, and complex control systems designed to decrease energy use and increase reliability. In essence, laboratory designs would be more "sustainable."

This discussion will explore a system of classifications of laboratory types and applications. It will consider the means and methods through which designers, owners, and users could more effectively discuss and classify their core objectives and needs and ultimately create more appropriate, affordable, and sustainable solutions.