"Shut the Sash" Pushback - Any experiences?
Hi all,
I've recently been getting some pushback from building administrators and engineers regarding "Shut the Sash."
One response I received was about CAV hoods, and that buildings that keep their CAV hoods can present a safety risk with air pressure. Another response I received from an engineer is that fume hoods do not have an impact on the amount of energy a building uses and dealing with fume hoods should be "left to the engineers" (this is the polite, abbreviated version).
My questions:
-Does anyone have experience with getting pushback when it comes to "Shut the Sash" or other fume hood campaigns? How did you respond?
-How do you differentiate CAV versus VAV hoods when communicating to labs about the importance of closing the sash?
-Do you have any data or sources you could share to support the usefulness of shutting the sash or demonstrate how fume hoods affect building energy usage (this one feels like a silly ask but having references would be very helpful as I may need to "defend" this program)?
Thanks all!
-Alisha
Hi Alisha, I haven't gotten that particular feedback, but I've definitely experienced the pushback. For context, what's your official role/title and what are your unofficial role(s) - and how much formal support do you have in doing those? I would approach it by identifying who your key decision makers are and evaluating what their sticking points or motivations are. For the Shut The Sash program, my go-to resource is Harvard Sustainability. https://sustainable.harvard.edu/schools-units/sustainable-labs/ Harvard has the name and reputation to be generally regarded well by University staff. They are concrete example of a successful Shut the Sash program. I think the VAV vs CAV question is most relevant in prioritizing sustainability initiatives. The VAVs have high potential for cost and carbon savings. The CAV system will be limited in impact for that purpose. Both should also emphasize that it's generally safer to shut the sash when not in use for workplace hazards that may be present in the hoods - so even though the comment may be wrong, I think that that pushback might be indicating a bigger problem in balancing the system's pressures. My institution's oldest buildings had a CAV system and also really bad HVAC in general. Temperature and humidity issues that would take weeks or months to fix. Air conditioning and heat at the same time. Humidifiers and dehumidifiers at the same time. In this case, my conclusion is that the solution isn't fair to put in the hands of the lab workers or facilities - executives needs to understand the ongoing cost (in energy and labor), the risk to safety, and the threats to productivity. The solution there is unfortunately capital investment. It's upsetting. If you have VAV hoods, I'd focus on making the case for those - and measure whether it's simple enough to include the CAVs or worth it to compromise. If you continue to get pushback about safety, you can consider looking to the Risk/Change Management tool that can help you present an evaluation of the risks and translate that into actions such as a pilot vs. full implementation. (Shut the sash program will conclude that you implement fully because it's established). This works well for anyone with a background in change management or continuous improvement. Hope that helps.