B102
Beginning Feb 28, lost at least one email to Owen Cooks and the emails that it took me to learn that it was Owen who was designing this.
| Feb 28 2002 to Owen Cooks from Linda
Swihart Once they get a foot in to a basement area there seems to have been no way to stop them from turning it into a wet lab eventually, and I thought we weren't supposed to be changing the use of basement space from non-chemical use to chemical use. I know they're saying it's an "instrument lab" now. How many chemicals (and what kind) are going to be allowed in it? Would you even be allowed to put a chemical hood in there? That would basically scream to the Dept faculty and students that they were supposed to fill the room up with chemicals and waste jars. Are there clear answers to those questions? Or even fuzzy, turbid, milky ones that you might have the time to try to get across to me? Are the answers on the internet!? I'm spoiled because OSHA regs are all there, and extremely well organized and find-able. I know lots of codes aren't on the internet, e.g. ANSI, but if you can point me to an electronic resource somewhere, I am pretty good at finding my way around it. And what did Mike say, anyway? |
| 2/28/2002 To Linda Swihart From Owen
Cooks I wouldn't know where to begin looking. I have not heard back from Mike. In the years that I have seen the other instrument labs in this area, there hasn't been an increase in hoods. In an earlier renovation, they removed a hood and moved it to a lab across the hall, so I am not concerned with the future wet lab scenario - we looked for space on the first and second floors before we even started with the basement but it was ruled out for various reasons. |
| Then 14 months pass. |
| 5/7/2003 To Owen Cooks from Linda Swihart I've just seen BRWN B102 for the first time since it was remodeled last summer and I have some questions. What sort of limits, if any, exist for the use of hazardous chemicals in that basement area? They currently have flammable liquids and compressed gas, although I did not note what the cylinder of gas was. Establishing the limits now while it's still pretty new (and putting them where I will never lose them, i.e. my chem safety web pages) will help keep it under control. I hope! |
| 5/7/2003 To Linda Swihart from Owen Cooks I don't know of any limits. The gasses were all that I knew were to be used. In our last correspondence on the project (attached) the only outstanding issue was where the gasses exhausted. Mike did not allow them to go in the tunnel so they are dumped into an exhaust duct next to the space and evacuated through the roof. |
| 5/8/2003 To Linda Swihart from Mike Koppes The building and fire codes are not available on the web -- for free ($400 to $800/ year - based on type). What I recall on B102 - this was to be an instrument repair room and was not intended to be a research or wet laboratory - more like an office area (i.e. a computer laboratory or drafting laboratory). I would anticipate small quantities of chemicals needed for repair and cleaning only. To convert this to a research lab (wet) would be a significant change of use from the design. |
| 5/8/03 To B
Robinson and J Schweitzer from L Swihart Who can tell me what this room was designed to be? I mean with written documentation to back it up? Why is it turning out to be really hard and time-consuming to answer this question? Am I asking the wrong people, and if so, how do I find the right people? Or how do I find the people who can tell me who the right people are? I have asked before to be included in the planning stages of projects like this, and I request again to be invited to any and all space renovation meetings. Not because I have all kinds of spare time, not because I'm a power hungry control freak, but to learn more about how these things work and if possible facilitate and prevent against what it looks like keeps happening (designing for one purpose and using differently). There is a suggestion that there are significant gaps, and these gaps are ultimately likely to be very bad for the Department and University. If we are allowing facilities to be designed for one purpose and then used for a different purpose, well, we MUST stop doing that. |
| 5/8/03 To L Swihart from B Robinson B102 was converted to a mass spect lab, not a wet chemistry lab. We tell P&E what we would like to do, they run things by Koppes and then design the space. We have done umpth-teen renovations this way and asked for a couple that were not approved. The NMR room (now Mcluckey's mass spect lab in B180 (178?)) was the last one What are the problems with instrument labs in the basement? With wet labs in the basement? When did this become a problem? Inquiring minds want to know. . I may be getting old and forgetful, but I don't recall you asking me. [to be invited to planning meetings -- LAS] Can you cite examples that are code violations so i have an idea of the general things you are thinking about, please. Most of discovery park is designed as flexible space and the use will vary as the occupants change. Are you saying this is not allowed? |
| 5/8/03 To B
Robinson from L Swihart It's all focused on (what I have been told repeatedly is in those pricey $400 - $800 fire code books) the (alleged) fact that modern codes do not allow "hazardous chemicals use" facilities (wet chem labs) to be created below grade. Below grade is a term that I believe is defined as more or less "any part of the floor of the room being below grade as per planners/architects jargon," but we don't have to split hairs to know whether or not B102 is below grade. It has been "a concern" for a long time unless I'm way off base about this. And maybe I am, I'm just trying to find out and I'm either asking the wrong people or the wrong questions. I have the strong impression from things Mike Koppes has said and that I read in the professional listserves to which I belong that this below grade restriction has been in the books in most or all states for years. Like ten years or more. The grandfathering customarily granted (I'm told) for existing facilities has allowed us to continue to use some spaces that would never be allowed to be created nowadays. Did you read what Mike Koppes wrote most recently? "What I recall on B102 this was to be an instrument repair room and was not intended to be a research or wet laboratory more like an office area (i.e. a computer laboratory or drafting laboratory). I would anticipate small quantities of chemicals needed for repair and cleaning only. To convert this to a research lab (wet) would be a significant change of use from the design." Mike is apparently under the impression that B102 has NOT been converted to a "wet lab" whatever that is. I would like to know what amounts of laboratory chemicals and chemical use are allowed under the provisions of what the room was designed to be, and I believe there are answers to those questions. But I have been unable to find anyone to explain the definitions/limits to me in a way that my little brain can cope with. Will you begin inviting me to planning meetings that involve research space? I know I have asked Darrel more than once, but not for over a year, possibly two years. It's really ancient history. Perhaps I never asked you. I am asking now. This is not a front burner item but it's important. Now I have to go finish writing recommended changes to Professor Negishi's "plan" for causing change in his group. And I will be gone to Dallas to a conference all next week. |
| 5/8/03 To G Cooks
from O Cooks fwd to Swihart FYI, REM is asking questions about the chemicals in your lab. I thought prep was occurring down the hall? |
| 5/8/03 From
Graham Cooks to Owen Cooks fwd to Swihart There is no intention to convert it into a wet lab. It would have mass spectrometers in it and these are used to sample small amounts of chemicals. There is no chemical preparation, separation or any other processing except in vacuum in the mass |