National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL) 71,656 gross square feet (GSF) FY 2015: 268,122 Btu per GSF 47.0% reduction from FY 2003 baseline FY 2015: 57.96 gallons per GSF 35.8% reduction from FY 2007 baseline Located on Maxwell Air Force Base, NAREL provides radiological monitoring data to support rulemaking and radiological emergency response activities. The Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System is the only nationwide environmental radiation monitoring network in the United States. NAREL also supports Superfund and enforcement activities with laboratory and field measurements and technical assistance for radioactive and hazardous chemical (mixed waste) contaminants. The facility includes a state-of-the-art radioanalytical laboratory and office space. Eight 4.5-kilowatt solar lighting fixtures in the facility’s back parking lot illuminate the space and making travel safer after dark. The lights are motion- and light-sensitive;

they store the power needed to operate for approximately five days in two 100-amp batteries and reduce power to 50 percent when the lot is empty. An air handler condensate recovery system collects about 800,000 gallons of water per year for the facility's cooling tower, which accounts for 65 percent of the facility's water use. The laboratory has eliminated all forms of single-pass equipment cooling. An infrastructure replacement project (IRP) includes new laboratory and office areas, as well as two new air handling units capable of providing heating, ventilation and air conditions for the entire main laboratory facility. It also includes a new exhaust fan sized to serve the main laboratory fume hoods. The IRP will ultimately reduce the number of fume hoods by 25 percent and save an estimated 2.7 billion British thermal units per year. No landscape irrigation water is used at the laboratory, as grasses and shrubs are climate-appropriate and survive on natural rainfall.

For more information, visit the NAREL website or the EPA Facility Contact List. Biology / Pharmaceutical Labs: “Top Five” Energy Efficiency Strategies by Building Type “Biology” and “Pharmaceutical” Labs have moderate chemical use and few fume hoods.  air conditioning unit with heatTheir energy use is dominated by the need to heat, cool, and move huge amounts of air, to maintain the required “Lab Air Change Rate”.  ac wall unit not coldThe Air Change Rate is a worker safety requirement specified by building codes and standards, and enforced by the laboratory’s Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) personnel.central air conditioner units consumer reports Air change rates are commonly specified in “air changes per hour”, or the number of times per hour that the total volume of room air is exchanged for fresh outdoor air. 

Most research laboratories use 6 ACH as a “standard” for safe laboratory design.  6 ACH is roughly equal to 1 cubic foot of outdoor air, per minute, per square foot of floor area, per ten feet of ceiling height.  This is approximately the air exchange requirement of an office space (1CFM/sf ÷ 20CFM/person * 100sf/person = 30x).  This results in a massive energy demand for heating, cooling, dehumidifying, and moving this very large volume of air through the building. The most effective EEMs for Biology / Pharmaceutical Labs are those that target reducing air flows, decoupling heating / cooling from ventilation, and /or reusing “waste” heat / cool from the exiting exhaust air.  Other mechanical / electrical EEMs can also be effective, but have relatively less impact on the total energy usage.  EEMs that target the building envelope, such as increased building insulation, reduced glazing %, triple glazing, or reduced thermal bridging, have far diminished returns. Our “TOP FIVE” EEMs for Biology / Pharmaceutical Labs are:

Optimize Building Program distribution (space planning for energy efficiency). Consider planning separate “office zones” that are driven by different AHUs (to allow partial use of recirculated air) Don’t put fumehoods in small, enclosed rooms Consider an HVAC strategy that uses enthalpy wheels on lab ACH (with a bypass for fumehood air). If so, use most efficient fumehoods possible. Separate heating / cooling delivery from ventilation delivery Strategies include: radiant slabs, radiant panels, within-lab fan coils, chilled beams, fan filter units, humidification / dehumidification equipment, and/or specialized “packaged air handling units” Via chemical concentration detection (“Aircuity”) in lab spaces Unoccupied mode for lab ventilation, including setback for fresh air delivery, temperature stability and setpoint, and humidity stability and setpoint High Efficiency Boilers, chillers, cooling towers, etc. Use central plant resources if available (chilled water, steam, campus co-generation, etc)

100% Outside Air Ventilation System We note that use of Enthalpy (“Heat”) Wheels in laboratories requires careful consideration. Fumehoods should only be connected to enthalpy wheel AHUs after careful study of the chemical processes to be used in the hoods has determined that cross contamination is highly unlikely. Under some circumstances, fumehoods can bypass the enthalpy wheel without significant energy penalty to the overall building systems. Avoid thermal bridging and maximize air tightness. NOTE: Wall R values don’t matter as much High Efficiency Fluorescent Lighting Low Ambient / Targeted Task lighting. Design the space to be “dim but pleasant”, with localized task lighting at work areas.News & Press: Featured Articles Email to a Friend Nortek v. Energy Lab: District Court Guidance on the Entire Market Value Rule Tuesday, August 02, 2016 By Philip Kline and Ryan Penkowski In a July 15, 2016 order in the matter of Nortek Air Solutions, LLC (“Nortek”) v. Energy Lab Corporation, et al. (“Energy Lab”), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California found that a defendant’s marketing materials alone are an inadequate basis for establishing that a feature drives demand for a product and therefore applying the Entire Market Value Rule.  

Additionally, the District Court reiterated the Federal Circuit’s finding in LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., et al. that demonstrating that the accused feature is essential to the operation of a product is not an adequate basis for applying the Entire Market Value Rule. In general, courts have found that the appropriate royalty base for the determination of reasonable royalty damages is often the “smallest salable unit” (for instance, LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., et al.); however, under the Entire Market Value Rule, a multi-component product that incorporates the accused features may be the appropriate royalty base if the accused features drive demand for the entire product. In the Nortek v. Energy Lab matter, Nortek alleged that Energy Lab’s “air handling units” infringed a variety of Nortek patents covering fan elements.  The District Court found that the asserted patents did not – either individually or collectively – cover the entire air handling system.  

Despite the limitations of the asserted patents, Nortek’s damages expert contended that the asserted patents drove demand for the entire air handling system and that it was therefore appropriate to calculate reasonable royalty damages using the entire system as the royalty base.  Nortek’s expert provided two bases for this conclusion: (1) the patented features were highlighted by Energy Lab in its marketing materials; and (2) the patented features are essential to the use of the accused systems.  Both of these bases were rejected by the District Court. The District Court found that “the fact that a company chooses to advertise its products in a certain way says nothing about why a customer chooses to purchase a particular product.”  It therefore found that Energy Lab’s marketing materials did not provide adequate support for Nortek’s expert’s application of the Entire Market Value Rule.  Additionally, the District Court reiterated the Federal Circuit’s finding in LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., et al. that “it is not enough to merely show that the [patented technology] is… essential to the use of the [accused product]” to support the application of the Entire Market Value Rule.  

The District Court therefore found that Nortek’s expert’s claims that the patented features were the “heart” of the system and “essential” to the operation of the accused air handling units did not provide adequate support for the application of the Entire Market Value Rule. Ultimately, the District Court found that Nortek’s expert’s application of the Entire Market Value rule was inappropriate and excluded his reasonable royalty opinion on that basis.  Professionals in the field may wish to consider this guidance when assessing damages in future cases involving multi-component products. Authors: Philip Kline is a Managing Director at 284 Partners, LLC.  Ryan Penkowski is a Senior Associate at 284 Partners, LLC. « Back to IndexNot a member yet? 9/27/2016The Kardashians v. Haven Beauty: Can Aggrieved Licensees Withhold Royalty Payments? 9/27/2016License Defense is Waived Due to Unjustified Delay and Prejudice 10/6/2016Central Collaboratory 201610/6/2016An Augmented Approach to Patent Portfolio Valuation