Inspection and Inquiry Report Into Santa Clara County Crime Laboratory

Fred de Funiak Foreperson Ron R. Layman Foreperson Pro Tem Patricia L. Cunningham Secretary 7 References Crime Laboratory 2001 Annual Report Facilities Needs Assessment - Final Report, April 20, 2000 ER&HDR Architects, Inc. McClaren, Wilson &Lawrie, Architects Contact Information Santa Clara County Crime Laboratory 1557 Berger Drive, Suite B-2 San Jose, CA 95112-2704 408-299-2224 crimelab@crime.lab.co.santa-clara.ca.us

There is a need for an improved facility There are built-in inefficiencies in the building's layout. Although response time appears reasonable, workflow is not optimal. We have no doubt that overall efficiency and response time, especially in the increasingly important DNA test results, could be improved in a facility designed to meet not just today's technology, but improvements in such technology that we can expect to come on-line in the coming years.

Certain fume hoods in the narcotics laboratory provide minimal protection for staff even though reports we examined indicate they do meet industry standards. Finding II is complex and requires further explanation: The Grand Jury is concerned for the health of all laboratory workers due to what appears to be the inadequate and technically backward ventilation system. The Grand Jury team studied this situation in greater detail on its second visit to the laboratory. The director shared with the Grand Jury team an independent assessment of the facility. One of the recommendations of this assessment dealt with the ventilation system. This factor played a large part in the decision to proceed with a new Crime Laboratory, resulting in management's deferral of planned renovations of the ventilation system and the weapons firing area. On this second tour, the director explained in greater detail the measures taken to minimize the potential hazards due 5 to the ventilation problems. The Grand Jury team believes that in many parts of the facility, the problem is being adequately addressed. For example, since the visit on October 10, one of the most toxic procedures has been moved to an area with fume hoods that vent to the outside. This has made a great improvement. However, the small desktop fume hoods used in the narcotics laboratory provided very little protection from toxic fumes because their openings are so large that very little draw of vapors actually occurs, unless the technician works well into the back of the hood. While these hoods may be adequate for storing desktop chemical vials, they do not appear adequate for actual working conditions. Moreover, the hoods themselves may be creating an unrecognized problem. These hoods use charcoal filters over which the contaminated air is passed and then vented back into the room from the rear of the hood. We noticed, and staff stated some concern, that particulate carbon, no doubt containing the very toxins they have filtered, may be entering the atmosphere to be breathed in by staff.

The weapons test chamber has no ceiling and is open to the larger room in which it is located, allowing lead particles to escape into the larger room. Since this larger room is used for many other functions and entered by personnel on a regular daily basis, there is a potential threat of lead poisoning present. The Grand Jury team and the director discussed how this chamber could be fitted with a sealed ceiling, thereby containing lead particles within the room. 6