This message is posted to different lists. We apologize for cross-postings.
Note: The following is for information only and should not be used to make
decisions on appropriate collections environments without consulting the
professional literature and/or consultants.
Meeting on Collections Environments, Washington, D.C., Sept. 3-5
A meeting on Collections Environments was held at the Smithsonian Institution
in Washington, D.C., from September 3 to 5, 1997. The purpose of the meeting
was to critically evaluate present standards/recommendations for all aspects
of the collections environments and to discuss the potential impact of recent
research results.
The meeting was organized by the Conservation Analytical Laboratory (CAL) of
the Smithsonian Institution and financially supported by the National Center
for Preservation Technology and Training (NCPTT).
To foster open discussions the meeting was by invitation only and without an
audience. Participants were: P.N. Banks, A. Beale, J.P. Brown, G. Cass, E.
Conrad, M. Frost, L. Kelter, R. Kerschner, W.P. Lull, S. Maekawa, S.
Michalski, P.N. Perrot, F.D. Preusser (chair), J. Reilly, W. Rose, D.
Saunders, L. Stuebing, R. Waller, S. Weintraub, and A. Zhivov. Observers: R.
Bishop, M. Gilberg, B. Schneider, D. Williams, and L. v. Zelst.
Discussion topics included: the building envelope; HVAC technologies;
chemical, mechanical and biological deterioration; relative humidity,
temperature and air pollution; energy and cost savings strategies, and the
work of the relevant committees of ASHRAE (American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.) and ISIAQ (International
Society for Indoor Air Quality and Climate). The meeting covered historic
houses, museums, libraries and archives, both in historic structures and
buildings constructed for the purpose of housing collections. It also
addressed the problems of different climate zones. A significant amount of
time was spent discussing risk assessment and the planning and decision
making process.
It is planned to prepare one or more publications on the subject of this
meeting, incorporating its findings.
Summary of Conclusions:
Decisions on control parameters for a collection cannot be made in isolation,
but instead should result from a systematic process that starts with a review
of the mission of the holding institution and the development of a masterplan
for the institution and the collection. All interested parties should be
involved in the entire decision making
process from the very beginning.
Factors such as the use of the collection by the constituency of the holding
institution and the frequency of access to the collection, as well as the
character of the building in which these collections are housed, are of
paramount importance when alternative options for improvements in the
collection environment are subsequently evaluated.
The next step should consist of a comprehensive risk assessment for the
collection and the building in which it is housed. Often, natural and man
made disasters, frequent and improper handling, and inadequate security and
fire protection pose a greater risk to collections than fluctuations in
environmental parameters. Available resources should therefore first be
invested in the mitigation of the greatest risks.
Once it is determined that existing environmental settings and fluctuations
are the largest remaining threat to the long term survival of a collection a
plan for environmental improvements can be drawn up. For this purpose it is
essential to know the nature and condition of the collection and to fully
understand the performance characteristics of the building within the local
climate. Any environmental improvements should start with such improvements
in the building envelope as are safe to its fabric and, where applicable,
allowable within the historical/aesthetical context. Only after this task
has been accomplished can one sensibly plan ways to further improve the
interior environment.
Before deciding on the set points of humidity and temperature, permissible
fluctuations, and seasonal drifts one has to understand if the deterioration
of the collection is mostly chemical or mechanical. One also should know
what percentages of the collection are of very high, high, medium, or low
vulnerability to environmental damage..
Based on this knowledge of the collections, the building and the local
climate one can approach a decision about the proper humidity and temperature
settings. Different standards may be required for different types of
collections. The use of microclimates should be considered as a valid
strategy for protection of the more vulnerable parts of the collection
A well controlled environment with humidity fluctuations of +/- 5% is still
considered the safest environment. However, individual conditions, including
the nature of the building and the collections can warrant the specification
of more widely relaxed standards after careful consideration and with
awareness that the risk for environmental damage may increase for parts of
the collections as larger fluctuations are permitted.
A flagship HVAC system, providing a flatline environment should only be
considered if the resources for its operation and maintenance are assured in
the long term. If budgetary considerations, the nature of the building, or
other factors make this unfeasible, alternative strategies including multiple
(micro)climates for different parts of the collection can be evaluated.
For most institutions that presently operate or plan to install a mechanical
climate control system, a relaxation of the presently most common standards
will not likely lead to great cost savings, although small to moderate
savings may result. Any such savings, however, as well as the concomitant
increase in risk to the collections, are dependent on the state and nature of
the collections and the building in which they are
housed.
Frank D. Preusser
Conference Chair
Frank Preusser & Associates, Inc.
6434 Pat Avenue
West Hills, CA 91307
USA
Phone: (818)348-0481
Fax: (818) 348-1764
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
|
