Rank: Forum user 
|
Hello Folks We have a suite of class 8 cleanrooms and a concern has arisen involving possible product contamination routes between two of the rooms resulting in a desire to completely seal the doorway in an airtight manner. The door already has top and edge seals and drop seals at the base but there is stilll some airflow. The door is part of an escape route where a maximum of 10 staff may be present. I have been asked to tape the edges with a suitable duct tape. The theory being the tape will break free if/when the door is needed. I have carried out a trial and the taped door requires a not insignifcant amount of force to open. We do however in another room have a 'proper' breakout panel as a fire escape which also requires pulling out a seal and liftin the panel away. So my question is, how acceptable is this? Is there a maximum force required to open a fire escape? Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Sounds like your clean room has some issues...most I have come across have a dedicated escape panel. There are no standards on the force required, although I could probably pull something (excuse the pun) from ergonomic force to justify but there would be so many caveats that it wouldn't be worth it... I would be recommending installing an escpe panel and then dealing with the door seal issue separately. no affiliation just a google search came up with this one: https://www.pbsc.co.uk/products/architectural/emergency-escape-panel/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: stevedm 
no affiliation just a google search came up with this one: https://www.pbsc.co.uk/products/architectural/emergency-escape-panel/
That's the exact panel we have elsewhere for escape. There is some reluctance to spend the money to remove the doorset and replace with this though. Hence the desire to just use tape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi ttxela I am usually the first to say that the principle of e.g. "reasonable practicability" means that you shouldn't spend money when it is disproportionate to do so. However, this is a "clean room" and there will be reasons for that designation, so if it isn't constructed the way that "clean rooms" are then various stakeholders are likely to have something to say about what sounds like management trying to save a few pennies. ....and whatever those stakeholders might have to say that is less than positive brings risks not least to reputation. I can't remember who it was but there used to be the tale of the business boss who had the Board Room clock calibrated in ££££ rather than minutes. So, if there was a Board meeting the clock measured the cost of all the men (in those days it was just men) sitting round the table. ...and the Chair could glance at the clock when a debate had been going on for some time and say: "Gentlemen, so far we have spent £XXXXX on this issue. Please can we now come to a decision". If you take all the people who are needed to make the sensible decision but who seem unwilling to do so, calculate their hourly rates - their hourly salary and then a multiplier for whatever extra benefits they get + overheads - with that multiplier probably meaning at least doubling the hourly salary, then you could work out how much the "opportunity cost" is of having a long argument NOT to do the sensible thing. Then add the opportunity cost of all the time that you can envisage spending on deflecting adverse comment from stakeholders. Very quickly that opportunity cost will exceed the cost of just doing things the right way. "Opportunity Cost" is all about understanding that whatever the task someone is doing, they COULD be doing something else and adding value. The entire tale might be an urban myth but the principle is sound. DON'T waste time (and thence money) on trying to defend poor decisions!
|
 2 users thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I gave limited experience of clean rooms but more of containment labs such as CL3 labs. A clean room should be at positive pressure unlike a containment lab so the air should be forced out, precisely to avoid sucking in contamination. It strikes me as being a bit odd that this is an issue. if there is a good operational reason them I think it would make more sense to have a breakout panel. Imagine trying to get out during an emergency evacuation. You find a door labelled emergency exit and you can’t open it. Is it locked or jammed? People will forget that it might have been tapped up. How much force is required to open it depends on the tape that you are using. Paper might not be a problem but what if someone in the future decides to use some sort of re-enforced tape like Duck tape.? Will there be signage reminding people that the door it taped up. will there be a tool by the door to cut the tape? How will the tape be maintained? The thin masking tape will degrade over time, will people be told to replace all of the tape or will they add extra bits of tape, plugging the holes but making the door more difficult to open. A breakout panel is better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
...I am sure there is someone in your organisation currently wanting to show 'Safety Leadership' here is an example of how a senior leader can actually make a difference...if I walked around a site and found duct tape on a containment door I would be asking some serious question on leadership of GMP...
|
1 user thanked stevedm for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.