Blueprint for a Green Campus (2000 Edition) 

Table of Contents | Introduction | Goals | Institutional Issues | Climate-Friendly Campus | Growing Without Increasing Traffic | Safe/Healthy Campus | Consumption and Disposal Habits  

Creating a Safe and Healthy Campus

Part I: Minimizing Hazardous Waste

The Vision

• CU reduces the amount of hazardous waste generated by the campus while maintaining the quality and quantity of research.
• CU continues to advance pollution prevention programs to reduce the quantity of hazardous material present on campus and to promote a safer working and learning environment.

The Need

Hazardous materials—such as laboratory chemicals, chemical by-products, chemical handling supplies, paints, and solvents—can cause pollution and present risks to health, safety, and the environment. The improper use and disposal of hazardous chemicals have consequences on both the health of those who handle the material and those whose water, air, and land may be polluted by leaks, spills, and volatile emissions.

While the University of Colorado at Boulder uses relatively small quantities of many different hazardous materials (flammables, corrosives, toxics, radioactive isotopes, and biohazards) in its labs, art/photographic studios and workshops, collectively this accumulation categorizes the campus as a large quantity generator. The aggregate of hazardous waste generated at CU-Boulder has drastically increased in the past 10 years. In 1989, CU generated 12,337 kilograms of hazardous waste and in 1999, 73,260 kilograms was generated. This is a 494 percent increase in 10 years. During that time, research dollars increased 139 percent—from $85.5 million in 1989 to $204.3 million in 1999.

To a certain degree, the sources of hazardous waste at CU are analogous to households within the City of Boulder. Environmental and safety initiatives must properly reflect this individual level of responsibility. Correspondingly, the requirements and obligations that come with being a large quantity generator provide CU with some opportunities and structures to better assist these goals at an institutional level.

Accordingly, both the campus community as individuals and the university as an institution are committed to seeking and employing waste minimization and pollution prevention measures to better manage the potential risks and responsibilities inherent in these activities.

As with all safety and environmental protection goals, campus-wide pollution prevention and waste minimization efforts are responsibilities shared by the entire campus community. Faculty, staff and students have already made significant, ongoing efforts in support of these goals. These developments must be further encouraged and enabled by providing clear and direct information, innovative support programs and focused expertise. Individual waste minimization and pollution prevention efforts must also be better publicized to better foster an environment of innovation and community-wide commitment.

Ongoing Projects and Accomplishments

• The lab proctor program builds a campus-wide health and safety network with local points of knowledge and expertise
• EH&S has a mercury thermometer/instrument exchange program in which free solvent based thermometers are given out. So far, over 1000 thermometers have been replaced.
• EH&S provides free secondary containment tubs in a variety of sizes to minimize accidental releases of hazardous materials.
• EH&S Ambassadors program encourages and publicizes significant contributions made by University community members towards waste minimization, pollution prevention and safety.
• Chemical redistribution information is posted on EH&S website. Localized, informal redistribution between labs and/or shops, and department-wide efforts, such as Chemistry Stores are tremendously effective.
• EH&S and other departmental publications improve safety and knowledge of use and disposal procedures.
• Faculty, staff and students undergo training in the handling and disposal of hazardous materials.
• Department level safety committees often include hazardous materials handling instructions.
• Staff/Faculty check-out program requires proper management of hazardous materials before exiting the University.
• Safe storage cabinets are being provided to necessary areas.
• Conversion of Fine Arts and News Services photo labs to digital photo processing
• Many departments employ microscaling practices and computer modeling to help reduce hazardous waste generation.
• EH&S and the Hazardous Materials Advisory Board are conducting a feasibility study of a central chemical procurement system.
• EH&S and the Hazardous Materials Advisory Board are identifying the needs for a chemical tracking and inventory system.

Master Plan Language

The new campus master plan addresses the importance of pollution prevention and hazardous waste minimization.

Section IV.D.1 Outdoor Air Quality

• Reduce hazardous waste generation (avoiding the need for waste disposal companies to incinerate it).

Section IV.D.3 Water Quality

• Regulate all uses on campus through the office of Environmental Health and Safety in order to avoid instances where hazardous wastes may be dumped into the waste water system.
• Label and locate storm drains appropriately to help avoid accidental spills into creeks.

Section IV.D.5 Hazardous Materials

• Minimize the production of hazardous waste through education, inventory, tracking , and intra-campus redistribution.
• Conduct on-site inspections, training and program reviews, and investigations of incidents.
• Oversee safe use of radioactive materials and radiation producing machines.
• Handle, transport, and appropriately dispose of hazardous waste materials.
• Test, detect, abate and/or dispose of materials containing asbestos and/or lead.
• Develop contingency plans and procedures.

Additional Action Steps Needed to Achieve Goals

Although many hazardous waste minimization and pollution prevention projects are currently underway, there are still opportunities for CU to further advance current programs and implement additional programs.

• Based on the feasibility study, institute a central chemical procurement system which would allow for:
• More permanent and detailed labeling (possibly with barcodes)
• Better ability to redistribute surplus chemicals
• Competitive prices which may result in less bulk purchasing of large quantities of chemicals when only small amounts are necessary
• Information on the substitution of alternative, safer chemicals at time of purchase
• Information to track and inventory hazardous materials on campus
• Further advance "Best Management Practices" already adopted by many laboratories and shops to maximize safety and minimize waste.
• Investigate the feasibility of applying an "advanced disposal fee" to discourage bulk purchasing of chemicals.
• Further advance microscaling efforts ("Microscaling" involves conducting experiments on a smaller scale thus reducing the quantity of hazardous substances use in experiments, manufacturing, and routine cleaning).
• Install new treatment options and technology at new EH&S facility which will significantly decrease hazardous waste volumes.
• Add a waste treatment specialist to the EH&S staff to run the waste treatment process and advise on waste minimization techniques.
• Reduce photographic chemical waste by utilizing new technologies and procedures.
• Establish a battery recycling program so that rechargeable (lithium, nickel-hydride etc.) batteries are recycled rather than incinerated as hazardous waste or (in the case of alkaline batteries) taken to the landfill.

References

Creighton, S. H., Greening the Ivory Tower, The MIT Press, 1998

University of Colorado at Boulder Environmental Health and Safety Department, Hazardous Waste Volumes and Research Dollars, 1989-99.

University of Washington Laboratory Safety System, www.ehs.washington.edu

Wergin, Dave and Michael Morrison, CU Environmental Health and Safety. Personal Communication to Will Toor and Marianne Moulton. December 1999.

Part II: Minimizing Exposure to Toxic Chemicals and Pesticides

The Vision

• CU significantly reduces the use of harmful chemicals and volatile pesticides in buildings and grounds management through integrated pest management.
• Campus buildings provide high indoor air quality through improved ventilation and control of indoor air pollution sources.

 

The Need

Chemicals and pesticides pose risk to the health and safety of humans and the environment. Pesticides can cause adverse health effects in humans, such as cancer, neurologic disruption, birth defects, genetic alteration, reproductive harm, immune system dysfunction, endocrine disruption, and acute poisoning.

The use of many chemicals and materials containing VOCs (volatile organic compounds) decreases the quality of indoor air in the home and workplace. Chemical sources can range from pesticide sprays to off-gassing carpets to cleaners. As a result of chemical exposures, more and more people are developing chemical sensitivities and endure physical symptoms. People experience symptoms upon exposure to even low levels of chemicals, thus coining the term sick building syndrome. All campus buildings contain sources of indoor air pollutants which may cause reactions in people with chemical sensitivities.

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is program which reduces the use and associated risk of harmful chemicals and pesticides. IPM involves:

• A coordinated decision-making and action process for managing pests in an environmentally and economically sound manner.
• Monitoring through regular and careful inspection to determine pest-injury levels.
• Record-keeping to track problems, prevent recurrences, and evaluate the results of pest-management actions.
• Combined biological, cultural, physical, mechanical and educational tactics to:

• minimize health, environmental, and financial risks
• prevent intolerable damage or annoyance, and
• alleviate hazard to non-target organisms.
• Use of extensive knowledge about pests, such as infestation thresholds, life cycles, environmental requirements and natural enemies, to complement and facilitate biological and other natural control of pests.
• Judicious use of least toxic chemicals only as a last resort to controlling pests in emergency situations. Priority is given to non-chemical pest management techniques, particularly those that can prevent the reoccurrence of the problem.

Integrated pest management (IPM) makes sense--both economically and environmentally. Pesticides are an expensive choice because they do not solve pest problems at the source. IPM seeks to disrupt and destroy the conditions favorable to infestations. The cost of least toxic IPM is comparable to or less than traditional pesticide-based programs. Long-term savings can be realized by eliminating the need for action in the future.

Outside pest-control firms typically do not sell true IPM services since the purpose of IPM is preventative; thus, their levels of business could be reduced over time. CU should not rely on outside contractors to control pests unless they adhere to an established campus-wide IPM policy.

The 1999 student environmental survey showed that 84% of the student body would support organic management of campus lawns, without the use of pesticides, even if this lead to the presence of more dandelions.

Current Position and Accomplishments

In recent years, CU has made great progress in moving from traditional pest management methods to less toxic methods and has significantly reduced the volumes of chemicals used to control indoor and outdoor pests on campus. For indoor pest management, pesticides are still used but their use is safer, more effective and more responsible. They are no longer applied in powder or aerosol form nor are any volatile chemicals used for indoor pest management. For outdoor pest and weed management, biological, mechanical and cultural means are the first choice rather than chemical controls.

IPM Indoors

In the Department of Housing Dining Services alone, outside contractors would spray to control pests once each week and would fog kitchens twice each year. These techniques changed in January 1998 when Housing staff decided no results were seen while over $20,000 was expended annually on pest control in dining service areas. Rocky Mountain Pest Control was contracted out to practice integrated pest management for Dining Services. With pests under control and cost savings realized, IPM has proven itself as a successful practice for Housing Dining Services. Additionally, the Department of Housing practices least-toxic IPM in Family Housing apartments and Residence Hall units through prevention and baits--not sprays.

Only a handful of buildings on campus still rely upon pesticide sprays, notably the Power House, Recreation Center, and University Memorial Center. Many pesticide applications are done by outside contractors (Ace and Abash). In the past three years, only once has Facilities Management needed to spray inside a building in the East zone of campus. In the past two years, no indoor spraying has been conducted in West zone buildings (excluding the UMC and Recreation Center).

In 1998, CU embarked on a unique experiment which employed parasitic wasps to control campus roach populations. Very small, harmless wasps were released in the steam tunnels where roaches have found the perfect habitat for breeding. The wasps prey only on roach eggs; thus, controlling the roach population at the source. What started as an experiment has been heralded as a success.

In the fall of 1999, Facilities Management hired an IPM technician to use alternatives to volatile pesticides. Baits, vacuums, sticky traps, mechanical and biological controls are all effective and safe and are now the standard in campus pest control. The cornerstone is the knowledge of the pests and their habitat for long-term prevention. The additional benefit of the IPM technician is the education of campus users. Campus users are seeing results, are satisfied with safe and healthy approaches, and are also gaining an understanding of pest prevention.

IPM Outdoors

In the past few years, outdoor spraying has happened two to three times for box elder bugs and for elm bark beetles. Aerial spraying is no longer utilized for the elm bark beetles. The elm bark beetles which cause dutch elm disease are now treated with soil injections on the highest risk trees. Sanitation pruning and selective use of plant materials also prevent pest infestations. In addition, over two tons of chemicals deemed unnecessary and/or highly toxic have been removed from campus and disposed of properly.

Facilities Management does reserve the option to use pesticides as a last resort. In the spring of 1999, outdoor spraying was used to control the worst dandelion populations (about 10 to fifteen percent of the landscape). Currently, grounds crews are employing more intensive mowing techniques rather than sprays. Alternative weed control methods, such as the application of corn meal gluten, are being utilized in test plots. In areas where dandelions are less of a problem, weeds are pulled by hand. In few areas of campus, the soil is healthy and weeds are not a problem, so treatment is not necessary.

RoundUp is the most used contact herbicide on campus grounds. Its use is generally restricted to gravel beds, sidewalk cracks and mulched areas. To further reduce the use of herbicides, Facilities Management will begin to use weed flamers to control weeds in gravel beds and sidewalk cracks.

Noxious weeds now pose a formidable problem to campus natural areas. East campus and the recently acquired Gateway property have established populations of many noxious weed species, notably diffuse knapweed, Canada and Musk thistle, leafy spurge, and yellow toadflax. To control noxious weeds, Facilities Management Grounds Division is putting together an integrated weed management proposal which will:

• Collect data, monitor and map populations;
• Establish and prioritize injury levels;
• Select treatment based on lifecycle factors;
• Systematically prevent further invasion and then employ cultural, mechanical, biological, and chemical treatment strategies;
• Utilize record-keeping and evaluation; and,
• Educate and raise awareness of campus users.

The Department of Housing also uses IPM to manage their grounds. In 1994, the use of pesticides was banned on the grounds surrounding residence halls. Aesthetics have not been compromised and residents are extremely satisfied.

Other Sources of Chemical Exposures

Campus buildings are now more often being built and maintained with products (i.e., adhesives, paints, stains, cleaners) that contain lower levels of VOCs (volatile organic compounds). Facilities Management is identifying which of these lower-VOC products perform just as well or better than high-VOC products. The production of high-VOC products will be phased out in the near future as directed by Federal regulations. Thus, their use will become less common. In campus construction projects, the use of low-VOC products is up to the contractor and project managers. No- and low-VOC products need to be used as a standard practice in building construction and maintenance.

Master Plan Language

Section IV.D.3 Water Quality

Continue the integrated pest management system, which helps reduce the use of pesticides in landscaping and drainage runoff.

Section IV.D.2 Indoor Air Quality

CU-Boulder will continue to implement practices and procedures that help assure indoor air quality. Guidelines:

• Locate vehicular loading areas and air intakes at separate locations in new building design.
• Use low or no VOCs materials more often.
• When possible, instigate a purging time to ventilate a new building, when possible, with outside air for a reasonable time before people move in. This will help remove airborne contaminants leftover from the construction process, and will better accommodate the initial off-gassing of VOCs.
• Increase outdoor make-up air to the extent possible and consistent with building codes, while balancing the consequences of increased energy use.

Action Steps Needed to Achieve Goals

CU has been practicing Integrated Pest Management for nearly five years. IPM is indeed proving that we can have more control over our institutional environment which results in more satisfied campus users, fewer pests, fewer problem infestations, and fewer pesticides.

It is time for CU to formally implement a complete least toxic IPM program that applies to the whole campus. To implement a strong indoor and outdoor IPM policy, we need to:

• Provide consistent and adequate funding and staff
• Further educate campus users and visitors of efforts to reduce pesticide and chemical use
• Eliminate the use of chemical sprays
• Institute a decision-making structure which places least toxic pest control methods as the highest priority and reviews campus-wide pest control methods
• Continue to manage noxious weeds with alternative methods when and where possible
• Address and plan for IPM in Campus Building Standards
• Eliminate use of restricted chemicals. Identify which pesticides to absolutely not use on campus and ban the use of highly toxic, unnecessary pesticides.
• Require outside pest control contractors to follow IPM policy and procedures.

To provide high indoor air quality, we need to:

• Design for improved indoor air quality. Design needs to address source control (building materials, furnishings, equipment, cleaning agents), ventilation control, occupant activity control, and building maintenance.
• Identify safe and effective alternatives to chemical cleaners for use by all campus custodial staff.
• Campus standards need to direct the use of high-performance no- or low-VOC paints, adhesives, cleaners, carpets, and wood products in new buildings, renovation of old buildings, and building maintenance as a standard choice (not as an alternative).

Measurement

In order to track the success of the IPM program, it is important to collect adequate campus-wide data, including:

• Track what pesticides are applied in what volumes
• Monitor the circumstances leading to pest occurrences and reoccurences
• Evaluate and monitor the methods used to completely eliminate pest invasions
• Account for costs of damage incurred and/or avoided

Student Support

In the fall of 1999, the Environmental Center conducted a scientific survey of student attitudes on campus environmental issues. One of the questions addressed pesticide use on campus lawns. Students overwhelmingly support the organic management of campus lawns even if it means more dandelions. 84 percent of respondents felt that CU should stop using pesticides on campus lawns.

References

University of Colorado, Department of Facilities Management, Draft Integrated Pest Management Program Description

Bruning, John, Scott Harvey, Joe Sanchez, Theresa Stephens, Ed von Bleichert, Working Toward a Healthy Campus: A Forum on Integrated Pest Management, University of Colorado at Boulder, March 16, 2000