Furr, A. Keith Ph.D. "LABORATORY FACILITIES-DESIGN AND EQUIPMENT" CRC Handbook of Laboratory Safety Edited by A. Keith Furr, Ph.D. Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC,2000 ©2000 CRC Press LLC 69 Chapter 3 LABORATORY FACILITIES—DESIGN AND EQUIPMENT I. LABORATORY DESIGN The design of a laboratory facility depends upon both function and program needs but not strongly upon the discipline involved. Although there are differences among engineering, life sciences and chemistry laboratories, and within the field of chemistry (between laboratories intended for physical chemistry and polymer synthesis, to take two examples), the similarities outweigh the differences except in unusual specialized facilities. Approximately the same amount of space normally is required. Certain utilities are invariably needed. Adequate ventilation is needed to eliminate odors and vapors from the air, which might have the potential to adversely affect the health of the employees, as well as to provide tempered air for comfort. Provision is needed for safely stocking reasonable quantities of chemicals and supplies. As these are used over a period of time, chemical wastes are generated and provisions must be made for temporary storage and disposal of these wastes according to regulatory standards. The laboratories must provide suitable work space for the laboratory workers. Many of these items, as well as others, vary only in degree. Most differences are relatively superficial and are represented primarily by the equipment which each laboratory contains and the selection of research materials used. Not only are laboratories basically similar, but there is a growing need for “generic” laboratory spaces readily adaptable to different research programs. This is due in part to the manner in which most research is funded today. In industry, laboratory operations are generally goal oriented, i.e., they exist to develop a product, improve a product, or to perform basic research in a field relevant to the company’s commercial interests. There is a cost-benefit factor associated with laboratory space which affects the amount of assigned space. In the academic field, research is primarily funded by grants submitted to funding agencies by the faculty. These grants can be from any number of public and private sources, but, with only a moderate number of exceptions, grants are based on submission of a proposal to the funding agency to perform research toward a specific end during a stipulated period of time. At the end of this period, the grant may or may not be renewed; if not, control of the space may be turned over to another investigator. Laboratory space is too limited and too expensive (currently running in the range of $100 to $300 per square foot, dependent upon the complexity of the construction) to be allowed to remain idle. The result has been a trend to design laboratories that are relatively small, typically suitable for no more than two to four persons to work in them simultaneously, with connections to adjacent rooms to permit expansion if needed. Under these circumstances, it will be appropriate in most of this chapter to base the discussion upon a standard module. One potential result of this growing need for flexibility may be an eventual breakdown of the concept of department-owned space for research buildings, i.e., the concept of chemistry or biology buildings. Eventually facilities may be designed toward a given type of use, such as microbiology or polymer chemistry but the users may be assigned suitable space independently of their original departmental affiliation, based, at least in part, on current needs. Instructional laboratories are an exception in terms of size since they normally are intended for continued basic programs, serving class sizes of 20 or more persons, and so typically are somewhat larger than is needed for research programs. Also, except at advanced levels, the instructional laboratories usually ©2000 CRC Press LLC do not conduct experiments or use chemicals having the same degree of risk as do research laboratories. The risk in instructional laboratories is also being reduced by the greater use of smaller quantities of chemicals because of advances in technology, and because of the safety training being routinely provided to the graduate assistant instructors at many schools. However, even in the case of instructional laboratories, many of the basic safety requirements still must be incorporated in the design. A. Engineering and Architectural Principles The increasing cost of sophisticated laboratory space dictates a number of design considerations. It is essential that space be used to maximum advantage. Due to the necessity for mechanical services, closets, columns, wall thicknesses, halls, stairs, elevators, and restrooms, the percentage of net assignable space in even a well-designed, efficient building is generally on the order of about 65%. Due to the large number of fume hoods in a typical laboratory building and other ventilation requirements, as well as the increasingly stringent temperature and humidity constraints imposed by laboratory apparatus and computers, heating and ventilation (HVAC) systems are becoming more sophisticated. The engineer must accommodate these needs as well as the need to provide personal comfort, conserve energy, and provide low life-cycle maintenance costs. Stringent new regulatory requirements under the Americans With Disabilities Act to accommodate disabled persons in virtually every program impose costly additional constraints on accessibility and provisions for emergencies. Building designs need to be sufficiently flexible not only to suit different uses based on current technology, but should be sufficiently flexible to adopt technological innovations. For example, provision for installation of additional data, video, and voice lines in excess of earlier needs is almost certainly desirable. Additional electrical capacity should be provided over that meeting current needs. Interaction of the occupants of the building with each other, with outside services, and with other disciplines also mandates a number of design parameters. This latter set of parameters is very dependent upon the specific programs using the building and will require substantial input from the users. Different disciplines perhaps require more variation in provision for the needs of service groups than in the laboratories themselves. Typically all of these design needs must be accommodated within a construction budget, established before the design of the building is in more than a very early conceptual stage, so the design process is a constant series of compromises. It is rare that all of the program desires (as opposed to needs) can be fully satisfied. To the architect, a very important factor is that the building must meet all the needs in an attractive way. Otherwise, the architect’s reputation could be at risk. There is certainly nothing wrong with creating an attractive facility in harmony with its surroundings, as long as this aspect is not achieved at the expense of the basic needs of the users. Generally the most efficient space is a cube, with no more than the minimally required penetrations of the walls and with no embellishments. No one would truly like to see this become the standard, although in the right context, even such a facility could be made very attractive. Buildings should fit into their environment in an aesthetic and congenial manner, but function and use factors should be preeminent in the design. No mention has been made up to this point of health and safety design factors. They must be incorporated into virtually every other design feature. The location of a building, access to the building, the materials of construction and interior finish, size and quality of doors, width of corridors, length of corridors, number of floors, the number of square feet per floor, selection of equipment, utilities, etc. are impacted by safety and health requirements. ©2000 CRC Press LLC Figure 3.1 Standard Laboratory Module. Although it would be anticipated that architects and engineers would be thoroughly familiar with applicable safety codes and regulations, experience has shown that this is not necessarily so, especially where they involve safety concepts other than those relating to fire or strength of materials. Even in these areas, the wide range of variability in interpretation of codes often results in a tendency to liberally interpret the codes in favor of increasing the amount of usable space or enhancing the visual aspects of the design. It is surprising how few architectural firms maintain dedicated expertise on their permanent staff in the areas of building code compliance, especially those areas involving health and safety for specialized buildings such as laboratory buildings. Even where such staff personnel are available, there is an inherent problem with a conflict of interest between the code staff and the designers since they are both employed by the same firm with the firm’s typical architect owner being strongly design oriented. Of course, the reciprocal is also true. Most safety professionals are not artists, as many architects consider themselves, who can adequately include the aesthetic aspect in their own ideas. The eventual users may not appreciate the sole viewpoints of either of these two groups. Since relatively few laboratories are built compared to the numbers of other types of buildings, comparatively few firms are really well prepared to design them for maximum safety, especially in terms of environmental air quality and laboratory hazards. For this reason, the eventual owners/users of a planned building should be sure to include persons to work with the architects and contractors. Where this expertise is not available in-house, they should not hesitate to hire appropriate consultants to review the plans and specifications prior to soliciting bids. Shown in Figure 3.1 above, is a standard laboratory module which forms the basis for much of the material in this chapter. This design, although simply a representative example, does provide a significant number of generally applicable safety features. A slightly larger variation on this design includes a central workbench down the center of the facility, but this represents an obstacle many users prefer not to have. The laboratories on either side can be designed as mirror images of this one and this alternating pattern can be repeated to fill the available space. The two side doors may be operational, as shown here, and provide ready access to adjacent spaces, if needed, for the research program. Most building codes do not require more than a single exit in such a small room unless it is classified by the building code applicable to the facility as a hazardous duty occupancy, so that if access to additional lab modules is not needed, either or both doors can be constructed as breakaway emergency exits or even not constructed initially to allow additional bench or storage space. Where the doors are included, two well separated, readily accessible exits exist from every point within the room, even at the end of a sequence of laboratories. ©2000 CRC Press LLC Figure 3.2 Section of a building utilizing the standard module as a recurring element. The single corridor with laboratories on both sides is a very efficient use of a building’s space. As shown, all of the laboratories are equipped the same but this can be readily changed by the use of modular casework. In this basic 12 foot x 20 foot module, the areas where the likelihood of a violent accident are greatest (within the fume hood) are at the far end of the laboratory, away from the corridor entrance, and are well separated from stored flammable materials and other reagents. The desk area is separated from the work areas by a transparent barrier which, with the door to the laboratory properly closed, isolates the workers, when they are not actively engaged in their research, from both the possible effects of an accident and continuous exposure to the atmospheric pollutants of the laboratory. This latter factor is enhanced by the normal negative atmospheric pressure between the laboratory and the corridor, so that the air in the desk area should be virtually as clean as the corridor air. The transparent barriers also permits the laboratory worker to maintain an awareness of what is transpiring in the work area even when they are not in it. Note that the negative pressure is not such that a major portion of the makeup air is drawn from the corridor. The amount of makeup air from the corridor is limited to about 200 cfm by code requirements. The area at the entrance thus would represent a safe space for employees or students to socialize, study, or even have a drink or snack. The door from the corridor to the laboratory is set into an alcove so that it may open in the direction of exit travel yet not swing into the hall, so as to create an obstruction to traffic in the corridor. Many of the laboratory’s features will be discussed more fully later on but a brief summary of the other safety features which recommend this design will be given here. Possibly the most important is the ©2000 CRC Press LLC location of the fume hood which is located in the lowest traffic area in the room and where it would not be necessary to pass by it in the event of an incident requiring evacuation. The hood should be equipped with a velocity sensor which will alert workers if the velocity falls below an acceptable level. The eyewash station and deluge shower are located close to the center of the room such that only a very few steps would be necessary to reach both of them. They can be used simultaneously. There is only a modest amount of chemical storage space, located beneath the work bench. The lack of space strongly encourages maintenance of tight controls on chemical inventories. The fire extinguisher is also located so that it is readily at hand. The makeup air inlet for the room, which is not shown, allows air to be diffused through the ceiling in such a way that it provides minimal disturbance of the air in the vicinity of the fume hood face. If warranted, a relatively inexpensive automatic flooding fire extinguishing system can be provided for the entire room. Similarly to the chemical storage space, the space devoted to the storage of waste chemicals is also modest, encouraging their removal in a timely fashion. A flammable material storage cabinet can take the place of this chemical waste area, with the chemical waste being stored in a small portion of the chemical storage area. Figure 3.2 provides a simplified illustration of how the modular approach can be integrated into an efficient and safe building design. This figure represents a section of a typical upper floor of a research building. Mechanical services, loading dock and receiving areas, support services, offices, conference rooms, toilets, lounges, and classrooms would be located either on other floors or further along the access corridors. Note that the fume hoods are at a back corner of the laboratory, and immediately outside the building is an external chase to carry the exhaust duct to the roof. The location of the external chase at the juncture of two laboratories allows one chase to serve two laboratories. This external chase solves another problem if all laboratories are not originally equipped with hoods. It would be almost as economical to go back and add a hood in this design as it would be to equip every laboratory with a hood initially. The internal equipment is shown as the same in each laboratory, but with the exception of equipment dependent on service utilities such as water, and the fume hood exhausts, the internal arrangement is highly flexible. The individual manager can relocate virtually anything else, and with modular casework now available, there would be few restrictions on the arrangements, even in such a small module. Mention has already been made of the ability to add a fume hood later, and flammable material storage in refrigerators or flammable material storage cabinets may or may not be needed. Since the use of laboratories does change over time, the design should provide contingencies for the maximum hazard use, in terms of safety considerations, in the original construction. The arrangement of laboratories with only a single support corridor, as shown in Figure 3.2 provides an advantageous net to gross square footage. The use of modules, arranged compactly as these naturally permit doing, allows the architect and building owner to achieve an efficient building. The external chases lend themselves to an attractive architectural columnar appearance to the building, otherwise the absence of windows in large segments of the wall might otherwise appear too austere. An actual building based on this external chase concept and with modular laboratories is shown in Figure 3.3. An aspect of the design above, which may not be immediately apparent, is that such a design is especially appropriate for adding to an older facility which was originally designed to meet less demanding standards than those of today. The newer component, situated adjacent to the original structure, and designed to meet current sophisticated research requirements, can be connected to the older one at appropriate places. By proper construction and fire separations, it would be possible to treat the old and new components as separate buildings, even though they are joined, so that it would not be necessary to renovate the older building to current construction standards. Less demanding operations, such as instructional ©2000 CRC Press LLC Figure 3.3 The external columns on this laboratory building, located on the campus of Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University contain the chases for the fume hood exhaust ducts, and are located so as to serve two adjacent laboratories. The exhaust ducts are led to a common plenum and are exhausted directly upward. The laboratory module in this facility is somewhat larger than the standard module described in this chapter so as to accommodate windows. The air intakes for the facility are located to the reader’s right and take advantage of the prevailing winds from that direction. laboratories and offices, could remain in the older component, and activities requiring additional and probably more sophisticated services, higher construction standards, etc. would be located in the new area. All of a department’s operations would be in the “same” building, which has important logistical and personnel implications, and construction of an entirely new building for a department would be unnecessary This concept is called an “infill” approach and provides some important financial savings, as it can extend the usable life of some older facilities. The methods of joining and maintaining separations between the two components also provide opportunities for architects to express themselves, such as making the less-expensive spaces between the two sections outside of the laboratory facility proper, into attractive communal areas. * The basic material in this chapter concerned with building code requirements was reviewed for the 3rd edition of this handbook by Howard W Summers, former Chief Fire Marshal (retired) for the State of Virginia. ©2000 CRC Press LLC REFERENCES 1. Barker, J.H., Designing for Safer Laboratories, CDC Laboratory Facilities Planning Committee, Chamblee Facility, 1600 Clifton Rd., Atlanta, GA. 2. Earl Wall and Associates, Basic Program of Space Requirements, Dept. of Chemistry, VPI & SU, Laboratory Layout Studies, Blacksburg, VA, 1980. 3. Ashbrook, P.C. and Renfrew, M.M., Eds., Safe Laboratories, Principles and Practices for Design and Remodeling, Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI, 1991. 4. Trends in U.S. Lab Designs for the ‘90s, Technical Paper No. 90.03, Hamilton Industries Infobank, New Rivers, WI, May, 1995. 5. Deluga, G.F., Designing a Modern Microbiological/ Biomedical Laboratory: Design Process and Technology: Laboratory Ventilation, Landis & Gyr, Buffalo Grove, IL, July 1996. B. Building Codes and Regulatory Requirements 1 There are many codes and standards applicable to building construction. Many of these are incorporated by reference in the OSHA standards. A large number of the codes grew out of a concern for fire safety, and hence this general area is relatively mature. Existing health codes generally address only acute exposures and immediate toxic effects. It has been only relatively recently that concern for long-term systemic effects has been addressed in standards, so there are fewer of them. The current OSHA Laboratory Standard replaces the detailed OSHA standards which were intended primarily for industrial situations and is a performance standard which requires that laboratories prepare and voluntarily comply with an industrial hygiene. The intent of the current standard is to ensure that laboratory employees are provided with at least the equivalent degree of protection as would have been provided by the general industry standards. Since most users of this Handbook may not be familiar with the OSHA General Industry Standards, there will be allusions in the text to these latter requirements as a reference base. There are specific sources from which a substantial portion of the material in this section will be derived or to which it will be compared. For building codes, the information will be referenced to the BOCA (Building Officials and Code Administrators) code and The Southern Building Code (Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc.). These codes are not used universally and, in fact, differ in detail, but do represent typical codes which, where applicable, provide mandatory standards. Other regional building codes are based on the same general industrial codes and recommendations of standard- setting organizations, but specific applications of these reference standards in codes for a given area may differ. The material presented here should not be construed as equivalent to either of these codes but instead as being representative of the subject areas under discussion. Standard 45 of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), currently under review for revision, is specifically labeled as a laboratory safety standard. It has not been adopted as a formal legal requirement in many localities, but it does provide valuable guidance in certain areas for goals against which both existing and proposed laboratories can be measured. The building codes are primarily concerned with fire and construction safety, with less emphasis on health issues. The materials cited are those most directly affecting the physical safety of building occupants or useful to persons discussing building design with architects and contractors. In addition, there will be other standards, such as the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), which will be superimposed on both existing facilities and, especially, new construction, that will also influence the design of laboratories. This last act (ADA) is very broad in its statements, and implementation details may in many cases depend upon litigation. Of course, OSHA also addresses some of the same issues as do the codes but due to the long process involved in modifying the OSHA standards, they tend to lag behind the other sources. The two building codes mentioned are formally revised every three years. Facility designers and users are encouraged to use the more conservative, safety and health wise, of current standards and guidelines. Standard 45 and the applicable building codes do not always agree, or at least they sometimes lead to different interpretations. The classification of the structure or building in which testing or research ©2000 CRC Press LLC laboratories are operated is usually designated under both BOCA and the Southern Code, for example as an educational or business use occupancy, although if the degree of hazard meets a number of specific criteria, a facility may be designated as a hazardous use facility. Under NFPA Standard 45, buildings used for the purpose of instruction by six or more persons are classed as an educational occupancy. The classification is not a trivial question since it evokes a number of different design and construction constraints. A building used primarily for instruction, which might include instructional laboratories, and some testing and research laboratories might be considered primarily an educational occupancy if any research areas were properly separated from the remainder of the building. An educational occupancy is more restrictive than a business occupancy but less so than a hazard use classification. Standard 45 classifies laboratories as class A, B, or C according to the quantities of flammable and combustible liquids contained within them, with A being the most hazardous and C being the least. As discussed later, a system of ratings has been developed in the certain types of facilities for the life sciences to designate laboratories according to four safety levels, with classes 1 and 2 meeting the needs of most laboratory operations, while 3 and 4 are restrictive and very restrictive, respectively. This concept, for consistency, might eventually be considered for laboratories of all types. In a later section of this Chapter, such a proposed classification scheme for chemical laboratories is put forward. 1. Building Classification For the purposes of this section, the classification of a building will be derived from the two building codes mentioned in the preceding section. The basic classification, therefore, will be either as an educational or business use occupancy. However, since some laboratories and ancillary spaces, such as storerooms, may meet the definitions of High Hazard Use (Group H), the following material will provide some guidance as to whether a given building or facility or part thereof should be considered a Group H occupancy. The standard laboratory module, as shown in Figures 3.1 and 3.2, can meet some of the requirements for high hazard use, e.g., that two or more well-separated exits and the doors swing in the direction of exit travel. The doors from the modules also are set within an alcove so that the door does not swing out into the corridors when opened. Table 3.1. Exemption Limits in Gallons for Several Classes of Materials For a Class 2, Hazardous Use Occupancy Types of Materials Flammable Liquids 1A Flammable Liquids 1B Flammable Liquids 1C Combustible Liquids II Combustible Liquids III A Flammable Oxidizing Cryogenics Materials not in storage cabinets, building not sprinklered 30 60 120 120 330 45 Materials in storage cabinets or building sprinklered 60 120 240 240 660 45 (in cabinets) 90 ( in sprinklered building) Materials in storage cabinets and building sprinklered 120 180 360 480 1,320 90 The hazard use occupancy group H is divided into 4 levels of hazard, 1-4. Since the OSHA Laboratory Standard does not address manufacturing or pilot process facilities, the following information does not apply to them. ©2000 CRC Press LLC ! The highest risk level, listed as H-1 generally is applied to facilities in which activities take place using materials that represent an explosive risk. In the context of laboratories, in addition to materials normally considered explosives, this includes organic peroxides, oxidizers, other highly unstable materials, and pyrophoric materials capable of detonation, as opposed to those which do not react as violently. The difference between “detonation” and “deflagration,” employed in the description of the second highest level of risk facility is the speed of the reaction process and the speed of propagation of the resultant spread of the affected area. Relatively few laboratory facilities would fall in this category. ! Group H-2 includes facilities using less vigorously reacting materials than those of Group H-1, as well as flammable and combustible liquids, gases, and dusts that are a deflagration hazard. Some laboratory facilities could fall in this category if substantial quantities of such materials were involved. However, the OSHA Labora-tory Standard definition would often exclude these facilities. ! Group H-3 facility activities involve materials that represent a physical hazard due to the ability of the materials to support combustion. ! Group H-4 facilities contain materials and involve activities that present health hazards. Laboratories could be found in any of these categories in most major research facilities. Fortunately, however, most laboratories are exempt because they use relatively small quantities of these materials. Material Safety Data Sheets, which are now required to be provided by distributors and manufacturers of commercial chemicals, give detailed information on the characteristics of all commonly sold laboratory chemicals. The definitions of explosive, flammable, combustible, and various health hazards are consistent with those provided by OSHA in CFR 29, Parts Table 3.2 Exemption Limits for a Few Critical Classes of Materials Representing Health Hazards For a Class 4, Hazardous Use Occupancy Types of Materials Highly Toxic Gases 1,2 (ft 3 ) Highly Toxic Solids & Liquids (lbs) Materials not in storage cabinets, building not sprinklered 0 1 Materials in storage cabinets 20 2 Materials in storage cabinets and building sprinklered 40 4 1. Cabinets here are construed as fume hoods or exhausted gas storage cabinet. 2. Gas cylinders of 20 ft 3 or less stored in gas storage cabinets or fume hoods. 1200, 1450, and 1910, Department of Transportation, CFR 40, Part 173, or other regulatory standards. These are discussed in detail in Chapter 4. Table 3.1 represents the maximum amount of various classes of materials representing physical hazards allowed in a controlled area, e.g , laboratories, for a Hazard Class 2 facility. Note that few laboratories will be considered Hazard Class 2 occupancies. Most will be considered Business occupancies, and the limits on flammables in these facilities will be governed by OSHA regulations. The limits for laboratories will be discussed in detail in a later section dedicated to flammable solvents. Similarly, Table 3.2 does the same for materials which represent health risks for a Hazard Class 4. One factor must be borne in mind, no flammable materials may be stored or used in a space that is below grade, i.e., in major part below ground level. It is possible to have different areas in a building classified differently. If this occurs, then the requirements for each use area shall be met in those areas. Where provisions differ, the requirements providing the greater degree of safety will apply to the entire building, or a complete fire separation must [...]... may be a fire door If the wall is of a 3- hour rating, the rating of the door must be 3 hours as well For walls of 1. 5- or 2-hour ratings, the doors must be 1.5 hours Around shaft and exit enclosure walls with a fire rating of 1 hour, the door assembly must be 1 hour, also For other fire separations with a required separation of 1 hour, the fire door need only be a 3/ 4-hour rated door Unless the interior... the laboratory s occupants 11 The facility shall include a separation of work spaces and desk areas as well as a second exit, equivalent to the arrangement shown in the standard laboratory module, Figure 3. 1 (see Chapter 3, Section 3. A) d High-Risk Facility A distinguishing feature of a high-risk facility is that the operations of the laboratory pose an immediate and substantial danger to the occupants,... source of fumes or near the floor (except for lighter-than-air or hot gases) Typical air flow patterns should draw dangerous fumes away from the normal breathing zones of the laboratory s occupants The facility shall include a separation of work spaces and desk areas as well as a second exit, equivalent to the arrangement shown in the standard laboratory module, Figure 3. 1 (see Chapter 3, Section 3. A)... standard laboratory module, Figure 3. 1 (see Chapter 3, Section I A) c Substantial-Risk Facility For the two lower risk categories, it is possible to be almost completely general since they are specifically intended to be used for only limited risks However, for both substantial risk and high-risk facilities, the nature of the risk will dictate specific safety- related aspects of the facility Most of these... viewed in the context of the safety of the occupants? A laboratory building, even though it is designated as a Business occupancy, does represent unique potential safety issues, which are different than many other types of uses found in this classification Even in a non -laboratory building evacuating perhaps several hundred persons down stairs presents problems When the source of a fire could involve... adjacent to the door identifying the major classes of hazards in the laboratory (See Chapter 2, Figures 2.6 and 2.7) 11 The telephone numbers of the laboratory supervisor, any alternates, and the department head shall be posted on the outside of the laboratory door or the adjacent wall Special Practices 1 Work with materials with safety and health ratings of 3 or greater in any category shall be performed... part in the proper performance of hoods, and they, in turn, usually ©2000 CRC Press LLC have the most significant impact of any piece of laboratory equipment on the design and performance of laboratory building air handling systems However, there are many other aspects to laboratory ventilation Hoods will be treated as a separate topic in Section 3. 2.2, and some aspects of ventilation will be deferred... of any illness that might be attributable to their work environment Records shall be maintained of any such incident as defined by the OSHA requirements for maintenance of health records No safety feature or interlock of any equipment in the facility shall be disabled without written approval of the laboratory supervisor Any operations which depend upon the continuing function of a critical piece of. .. ultra-low temperature units 2 A flammable material storage cabinet, either built-in or free standing, shall be used for the storage of flammable materials ©2000 CRC Press LLC 3 4 5 6 7 The laboratory shall be equipped with a fume hood The laboratory shall be equipped with an eyewash station and a deluge shower The laboratory shall be provided with one or more Class 12 ABC fire extinguishers A first-aid... hall in such a way that it may block the flow of traffic appears similarly unimportant if it preserves some additional floor or wall space within the laboratory The use of the corridor as a source of make-up air often seems reasonable, yet the possibility of this permitting a fire or toxic fumes to spread from one laboratory to another or to other parts of a building is clear once it has been considered . " ;LABORATORY FACILITIES-DESIGN AND EQUIPMENT" CRC Handbook of Laboratory Safety Edited by A. Keith Furr, Ph.D. Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC,2000 ©2000 CRC Press LLC 69 Chapter 3 LABORATORY. in most of this chapter to base the discussion upon a standard module. One potential result of this growing need for flexibility may be an eventual breakdown of the concept of department-owned. size and quality of doors, width of corridors, length of corridors, number of floors, the number of square feet per floor, selection of equipment, utilities, etc. are impacted by safety and health