Partner: WSP

If you were to approach a high containment lab, first you would have to undergo a series of interviews and a background check. After this you would have to actually reach the facility. This normally means travelling to a remote location. Your third step would be to pass the scrutinising eyes of a security guard at the perimeter fence.

After this you would have to pass through yet another security checkpoint, await confirmation that the facility is safe to enter, and finally enter the building. Once inside you must take off all of your clothes, deposit them in a container and don scrubs. You may then test and put on an air suit, two layers of gloves, boots and finally a respirator system that links to an air supply directly from the building itself. Every 10 metres you have to detach your breathing tube and reattach it to the next section’s air supply.

It pays to remember that this, a Biosafety Level 4 Containment Lab, is not a safe place. If everything goes according to plan, none of the equipment will be needed. But, if something goes wrong, it may save your life.

These high containment labs are in isolated, secure locations. They contain some of the deadliest materials on the planet. They are the frontline in our efforts to understand and prevent outbreaks of deadly diseases.

The labs are extraordinarily intricate, complicated and expensive structures that often require a large amount of energy, water and chemicals to function. Compromising the safety of such a facility’s operations in any way, is not an option.

So when it comes to a target for Net Zero by 2050, designing a lab with that end in mind is very different to an office block. To do so requires not just an understanding of engineering, but an understanding of the science and scientists themselves. It requires an intelligent approach to an unknown future, building in flexibility to take advantage of new technological wins and mitigate technological disappointments.

Most of all, it requires a common-sense approach to where we currently are and what we can do. There are a range of types and classifications for these labs, with some design commonalities they share, and some they don’t.

Background

According to Les Gartner, Senior Vice President for Science and Technology Design at WSP USA, “The big changes are really just in terms of how scientists are looking at bigger and bigger problems, if you will, or bigger challenges… they want all the toys in all the rooms.” He continues to explain, “it’s much more advanced, if you will, than sort of the mad scientist in the old days, in his dark little room, trying to develop things.”

Gartner is an architect, he has been working to design laboratories whilst liaising with scientists for the last 20 years. His expertise is in high containment laboratories, BSL 3 and 4, P3 and P4, CL3 and CL4. Different letters, same numbers.

The letters refer to either Biosafety Level, Pathogen Level or Containment Level, but basically all mean the same thing. These labs are categorised by numbers 1-4 for security purposes.

Gartner explains that “a BSL 1 lab is like someone’s kitchen counter. It can have some contaminants or bacteria on it, so you’ve got to keep it clean. A Level 2 lab is like a university type of lab where you could be exposed to a variety of things … they may be contagious, which they are, but they’re not going to have a mortality to them.”  At this level, we have a way to prevent people from getting sick from the pathogen they may be exposed to.

Move up to Level 3, and the difficulty increases. This is where Gartner’s team generally works. Pathogens seen at this level “from a human perspective, they could be catastrophic, like AIDS, for example. But, they are not transmitted through the air, they are transmitted through contact or things like that. So we know how to prevent it. Or, if it is transmitted through the air, we have a vaccine or some therapeutic to prevent people from getting it.”

Continue to a BSL 4 lab, and the pathogens studies are far more dangerous. “They have a high mortality rate, there is no treatment or vaccine at the time to prevent it. This of like Ebola … you get it, you have a high percentage chance that you could die from it. And so those are the viruses, the nasty viruses, [that are in] a lot of the labs I work on.” In these labs the viruses are diagnosed and researched for prevention. These are the most secure biohazard facilities built by human hands. They take the deadliest organisms so that they can understand them and develop a vaccine or therapeutic treatment to combat them.

What does it take?

While most countries aspire to have at least one Level 4 lab, there are only a few dozen operating worldwide. “They’re very expensive to operate, very expensive to build. And it takes a specialised knowledgeable person to operate it. So you see, certainly, a higher percentage … of Level 3 labs” Gartner explains.

Whilst price does depend on size of building and location, the labs are at least 10x more expensive than an office space based in the most exclusive locations. “Generally, they’re around $1,800 to $2,000 a square foot, which is like $20,000 a square metre.”

These labs don’t simply require the area to stand and work in. “[Gartner and his team are] doing one right now, just to put it in perspective for you. There’s one lab floor, which is a three metre floor space. Above it there’s a HEPA filter floor,” this is a high-efficiency particulate absorbing filter floor, “and then a floor and a half of mechanical above it. So there’s another … eight metres of mechanical space above it.”

But that is only above, what about below? “And then below it, we have a floor where all the piping drainage is. And then below that, we have all those support services, like incinerators, generators … And then we also have a utility floor.” This rounds up to 6 floors (two and a half both below and above the lab) for just one lab.

Engineering all of this requires power and energy, but so do the containment aspects of the lab. Level 3 labs have to process and dispose of all waste, while Level 4 labs have to incinerate everything. Unfortunately, incineration has a huge environmental impact, but the process can’t be avoided.

But what about the air? For a Level 4 lab, the air goes through a HEPA filter twice, each time filtering 99.97% of particles. The lab processes verify that the air has been cleaned, before it is dispersed out.

Additionally, Gartner knows that “the inflow air is actually single HEPA filtered, so that if there’s any kind of situation, any backflow will not go back up through that one. So the whole lab is protected by filtration systems.”

Meanwhile the plumbing system heats all water to about 150°C to kill anything that may have contaminated it. The water is then cooled down and discharged into a dedicated sewer system, where it is tested before being allowed back into the environment.

“On top of that we have looked at, you know, harvesting rainwater … to provide a reservoir of water that they will always have, in case there’s any issues with utilities or anything like that. So resiliency comes into safety.” Facilities must have safety protocols to continue running even during a crisis event, for example adverse weather conditions, natural disaster, power outages or intentional sabotage. “And so if we can provide a backup water source that builds in greater resiliency, and then use that to cool down water, it’s a win-win situation for the facility and makes it a safe operation.”

There are also energy resiliency requirements, such as two power lines going in, emergency generators, batteries and uninterruptible power systems.

Equipment and Flexibility

Modern labs are becoming very equipment-intensive and are demanding flexibility. Gartner explains that, similar to a hospital, if professionals are unsure of a diagnosis they will run multiple tests in order to figure this out. “Well, the same is happening inside the containment labs. They want to say well, you know, if I could do that and study a high containment virus, with machines like that, how would I do that? And so the challenge is to put an MRI, or something like that, into a containment lab.” Problems then arise with safety, how to shield from contamination, the inability to use metal containment, ensuring equipment is sealed.

A lot of this equipment requires regular upkeep, meaning other people need access to the equipment in order to maintain it. Gartner continues by saying that “there’s a lot of technical challenges, but I’d say the planning parts of it are equally challenging. Because you want to use standard equipment and yet it’s not really set up for decontamination. A lot of that equipment could get destroyed with repeat decontamination, and it’s expensive. So dealing with how to add in some of those pieces of equipment that they might see in a regular lab, into containment has been sort of the ongoing challenge that we’ve seen over time.”

Another challenge is communications. Each piece of equipment generates data, but these facilities are so secure that wireless communications are not used. In setting up systems for this, engineers must continually look to the future, anticipating solutions for problems and technologies that have not been created yet.

According to Gartner, “if you’re building something for, you know, 25, 30, 40 years, you’re gonna have to take some predictive approaches on how they might be able to add in new technologies to the spaces and so, you know, the equipment drives so much of these spaces, data, electrical, heat build-up, all those sorts of things.” These increasing energy requirements for more complex facilities conflicts with reducing the footprint of a lab.

Sustainability and its challenges

Narada Golden is the National Director for Built Ecology at WSP USA. He is a sustainability expert that can provide a clear view of the difficulties faced in making a high-containment lab more sustainable. He explains that, “one of the challenges with labs is that they are quite complicated […] and each lab is quite different. And so often, adding a sustainability lens to lab projects that are very complicated, can make them even more challenging. And so one of the things we try to do is simplify the question and focus on the areas that are most important.”

This can be distilled down to a key question: where is the carbon?

According to Golden, “our industry is learning a lot about this. And for a long time, we’ve known that energy, electricity, natural gas, other fossil fuels are associated with carbon emissions. And so people have focused quite heavily on energy use and reducing energy use. We’re seeing a larger focus on what’s called embodied carbon. And that’s an understanding that there are also carbon emissions associated with the concrete we use, the steel we use, all the equipment that goes into labs and all of the operations that happen through the research.”

One method for increased sustainability is electrification, replacing fossil fuels with technology that utilises electricity as a source of energy. Golden continues, “electricity is going to be cleaner 10 years from now than it is today. So every building that is using electricity will ultimately be cleaner 10 years from now than it is today. Because of that there has been a focus on using more electricity in buildings and using fewer fossil fuels, natural gas and other types of fossil fuels. So electrification is one strategy for implementing sustainability outcomes.”

However, this can become complicated for a lab, where there are specific uses for which natural gas is far more efficient than electricity. “Where we are looking at things like incineration, and even the operation of different labs and the fuels that they’re using to do their research. And that makes it a little bit more challenging to electrify labs specifically, … many of them need steam for various uses. And it’s very hard to produce steam without some sort of natural gas.”

It is here that hydrogen can provide an answer but, hydrogen needs its own infrastructure which, at present, is not there. Another challenge is around the disposal of water and lab chemicals, there have been scientific advances in these areas because of the current scientific interest in sustainability. Getting these options into the building requires engineers and scientists to talk to one another.

Golden has “worked with researchers that have wanted to make their research, their chemistry, their work, they’re doing cleaner and greener, but haven’t had the facilities to do that … we can’t design a lab for a green research practice unless that researcher wants to implement it. So, we really start by talking to them about their goals for making that research better, more effective, and hopefully more sustainable.”

Labs often require a large amount of ventilation, compared to other buildings, to introduce fresh air into the space and remove any air that may have been contaminated with chemicals. This ensures a safe space for the lab technicians.

Golden shows that “a big percentage of the energy used in labs is associated with ventilation. And one of the strategies for dealing with that is trying to group the things, the activities that require a lot of ventilation together, so that you’re not necessarily bringing fresh amounts of air throughout the entire lab facility, but maybe just small areas within the larger lab. And that has an energy use because [on] a cold day we’re heating up that air, we’re conditioning it and that all takes energy.”

The more air brought into a building, the more energy you’re using to heat it up or cool it down and condition it. “And so minimising ventilation, doing research where you need that high amount of ventilation in kind of limited areas, smaller volumes so that you need a less fresh air having ventilation that is variable depending on the air quality and what’s happening in that space so that you’re not bringing in more outside air than you need.”

What’s is X?

There is a lot of searching for co-benefits, but equally a lot of the thinking for Golden revolves around “why do we need X” and working from there. Take incineration as an example, why is it necessary and can the need for it be reduced? “If we can reduce the need, that is often the easiest way to reduce the associated environmental impacts. And again, that is focused on how the research … is done and the operations associated with it.”

Golden says that on his projects, aside from “where is the carbon”, he also asks, “‘Where is the energy?’ And for every project, we often complete an energy model. And that … will tell you 50% of the energy uses associated with ventilation possible, possibly 15% is associated with lighting, another 25% is associated with equipment. And you start to get a picture of the things that are using the most energy in that project. And that helps you prioritise where to focus.”

The requirements found in an energy model are vastly different for a lab when compared to an office or residential building. Similar to how homes require water for showers where office buildings don’t, ventilation is a priority for labs where it isn’t for these other areas. These requirements will result in adaptations to current working, “we’re going to see technologies in the next 10 years that do a better job of producing steam with electricity”.

Alongside this, there are common strategies that are true in office and similar buildings, that are also relevant in labs, for example energy efficient lighting, control systems that turn off or dim lights when people are not around. Consider also, lowered ventilation in rooms without people, these are pretty much universal.

Ensuring longevity for his designs, Golden explains “you always want to have a good picture of, of real time energy use within a lab facility and be able to manage that. And I think we try to simplify those solutions, in part because if we present 10, 15, 20 different options to our clients, who are already dealing with very complex lab designs, it becomes overwhelming.”

This is an interesting point, because the future is inherently complicated where new technologies are concerned. As a lab owner looks further ahead, the what-ifs multiply. To tackle this, Gartner and Golden use an approach called ‘back-casting’. “This large lab campus in the UK asked us to develop a pathway to a net zero future, and net zero carbon future. And the approach that we take is really to help understand what that future looks like, really articulating what a lab in a Net Zero future in 2050 may look like. [We use] a process called back casting, which is kind of working backwards from that Future Lab, to understand how we can get there.”

We know, for example, that a lab wants to get into a position to benefit from green electricity in the future, so energy efficiency is prioritised. Returning to Golden’s example of creating steam, “we presented four different scenarios for getting to a net zero lab in 2050. The first one is really extreme efficiency. And … as we present this, we know that new systems will be installed between now and 2050. The average life of these systems may be 10 or 15 years so that future technology will be more efficient. And if you absolutely need to use fossil fuels, you want to make sure that you are looking at five to 10 times an improvement in efficiency.”

Another scenario is a plan to shift to using electricity in the future, designing the buildings of today with space for future technologies that may be 10-15 years away from development.

“Some developers and clients then say, well, why wouldn’t we do that today? What’s the benefit of waiting 10-15 years?” But this depends on the technology itself.

“For this large lab campus, [Golden and his co-workers] looked very closely at what it would take to design for electrification of heating and hot water today. And they are planning very likely on doing that throughout most of the facility. And that’s because there have been a lot of advances in the efficiency of electric systems for heating and hot water over the last 10 years. There are certain uses, like steam, as I said before that are a little bit challenging to produce with electricity. And so the other scenario we looked at was designing the building to anticipate and plan for the use of hydrogen to produce steam in maybe around 2035, at the end of the life of this existing system. So this is another way of thinking about flexibility, and designing for future cleaner fuels. And something that we did for this lab campus when we knew that there was not available technology today to be able to install in the project.”

The idea is to always be in a position where there are multiple options available, no matter the course of history and technology. Rather than predicting the designs of the future, flexibility can be designed for. If asked whether one should design for a future based around electricity or hydrogen, the answer is to design for both and allow the flexibility to decide when the technology is developed.

Getting the results

Sustainability is a field in which misconceptions are rife. Golden is experienced with this, “a lot of times, early on in design meetings, we are working with clients to understand and address some of those misconceptions. So people often think that sustainability is putting a solar panel, or maybe some plants on top of your building, or investing in some sort of silver bullet technology that may make everything better.” They may also be unwilling to invest in any technology today, believing that there’s going to be something that we don’t know about that will come in 10 years, that’s going to reduce the impact of your project.

Golden finishes by clarifying that “oftentimes, these ideas can be helpful, but they may distract from some very common-sense solutions that are sitting right in front of us. [It can be important to focus on] integrated solutions that really capitalise on co-benefits or realise co-benefits.” Adjusting the mindset from a focus on current innovations, to allow for “integrated thinking and interdisciplinary thinking results in better projects that are going to be better for people and better for the environment.” Again highlighting the necessity for good communication.

Gartner finishes, “I’ve been doing it for quite a while. But you know, it’s very, very rewarding to do projects like this that have sort of important aspects for helping our nation’s health. You know, like, it helps us to understand the risks of these viruses and help people manage through that, develop vaccines, therapeutics… so we can live good, strong lives.”