|
New Cal OSHA Chemical Fume Hood
Standard, Title 8, Section 5154.1
In the latter part of 2006, the CAL/OSHA Standard Board adopted
the revised Laboratory Fume Hood Standard, Title 8, Section 5154.1.
The major revisions to Section 5154.1 requires that all fume hoods
must be equipped with a quantitative airflow monitor and fume hoods
that are equipped with reduced flow/set-back sensors must be tested
per ASHRAE 110-1995, Section 7. The fume hood standard becomes effective
on January 1, 2008.
The
Laboratory Hood Standard states:
Section 5154.1 (e) (3) (A) - Airflow
monitor requirements
"By January 1, 2008, hoods shall be equipped with a quantitative
airflow monitor that continuously indicates whether air is flowing
into the exhaust system during operation. The quantitative airflow
monitor shall measure either the exact rate of inward airflow or
the relative amount of inward airflow. Examples of acceptable devices
that measure the relative amount of inward airflow include: diaphragm
pressure gauges, inclined manometers, and vane gauges. The requirement
for a quantitative airflow monitor may also be met by an airflow
alarm system if the system provides an audible or visual alarm when
the airflow decreases to less than 80% of the airflow required by
subsection (c)."
Section 5154.1(c) (2) (B) - Reduced face velocity
requirements
"The laboratory-type hood has been tested at the reduced flow
rate according to the tracer gas method specified in Section 7,
Tracer Gas Test Procedure, of ANSI/ASHRAE 110-1995, Method of Testing
Performance of Laboratory Fume Hoods, which is hereby incorporated
by reference, and has a hood performance rating of 4.0 AU 0.1 or
less. The test may be performed with or without the mannequin described
in the ANSI/ASHRAE 110-1995 tracer gas method."
The complete text of the regulation can be found at: http://www.dir.ca.gov/Title8/5154_1.html
COMPLIANCE WITH CAL/OSHA FUME HOOD STANDARD
TSS can be of assistance to assure complete compliance with the
new regulations. TSS has been in business for over 35 years and
specializes in the testing of fume hoods and other ventilated hazard
control systems.
TSS can provide the necessary fume hood airflow monitors, installation
and testing services needed to comply with the new Cal/OSHA fume
hood standard.
TSS can provide the following services at No Charge
to our clients:
- Free Consultation Services to define client needs for Compliance
- Conduct an Assessment of the fume hoods that may require airflow monitors and/or ASHRAE 110 testing
- Demonstration of features of the TSS Apex Premier and Apex 1000 Airflow Monitors
TSS can provide the following services
at Competitive Pricing to our clients:
Required
ASHRAE 110 testing (per CAL/OSHA Standard) for fume hoods with
set-back sensors
- TSS
Apex Premier and/or Apex
1000 airflow monitors to meet the new standard,
as well as Installation of these airflow monitors for a nominal
fee
- For clients choosing to utilize in-house personnel, we can provide
instruction to Facility/Engineering personnel on proper installation
procedures at no charge
TSS maintains offices that are conveniently located throughout
California and can respond promptly to any request for consultation
or services. For additional information regarding the new CAL/OSHA
laboratory fume hood standard or schedule a meeting to discuss your
facilities needs, please contact Allan Bier at 510-845-5591 or email
him at abier@techsafety.com,
you can also contact any of our California regional offices listed
on our contact page.
ISO 14644 vs. FS209E
(Part 1)
Massie Ballon
First published in 1963, US Federal Standard 209E, which dealt
with cleanroom classification and monitoring, was also used for
several years by other nations. The European Committee for Standardization
(CEN) worked with the International Organization for Standardization
(ISO) to develop standards to be used by all of Europe, though each
member nation had their own national standards as well. The need
for a single standard for cleanroom classification and testing by
which regulatory agencies and (multinational) companies around the
world would comply was long felt, but it was never fully realized
until 1992, when the American National Standards Institute (ANSI),
backed by the Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology
(IEST) petitioned ISO to develop an international standard that
would be used on a global scale.
To that end, ISO formed Technical Committee (TC) 209 and began
developing standards for cleanroom classification and monitoring
that are now known as ISO 14644 and 14698. Seven years later, ISO/TC
209 saw IEST publish ISO 14644-1, the first international standard
to deal with cleanliness classifications. ISO 14644-2 was published
in 2000 and discussed the monitoring procedures required to remain
compliant with ISO 14644-1.
|
Summary Table: ISO vs. FS209E |
| Affected Parameters |
FS209E |
ISO 14644-1 |
| # Cleanliness Classes |
6 |
9 |
| Class Designations |
1 - 10000 |
1 - 9 |
| Measurements taken in |
feet |
meters |
| Sample time, minutes |
>1 minute for smaller particle sizes |
1 minute minimum for all particles |
The most marked differences between FS209E and ISO 14644 are the
addition of 3 more cleanliness classes, new class designations,
and the use of the metric system in calculating both the minimum
volume of air and the dimensions of the test area. In general, fewer
sample locations are required when following ISO 14644, though the
required minimum sample time of one minute is longer than that for
FS209E. Finally, per ISO 14644, the cleanliness classes are now
calculated, a standard particle size (1.0µm) has been added,
and there are guidelines for establishing periodic testing schedules.
|
Class Designations |
FS209E (English) |
ISO 14644-1 |
- |
1 |
- |
2 |
1 |
3 |
10 |
4 |
100 |
5 |
1000 |
6 |
10000 |
7 |
100000 |
8 |
- |
9 |
European nations declared their own standards superceded by Parts
1 and 2 of ISO 14644 six months after the publication of each document,
and the US reached that same conclusion in November 2001 when it
declared FS 209E cancelled and superceded. However,
there are still several companies in the United States that have
not yet begun using the now-current standards.
|