sustainability report coverhr.fullerton.edu/documents/professionaldevelopment/ubi/...green building...

Sustainability Report

Completed by the Sustainability Project Team Leadership Development Program 08-09

Sustainability Project Team: Scott Bourdon, Associate Director, Safety Programs & Services Afsaneh Hamedani, Manager, Information & Learning Commons Gregory Keil, Manager, Building Trades Dr. Shari McMahan, Chair, Health Science Dr. Gail Pakalns-Naruo, Director, Counseling & Psychological Services Frances Teves, Director, State Relations & Advocacy Dr. Susan Tschabrun, Chair, Technical Services, Pollak Library Sally Yassine, Associate Director, Contracts and Procurement

Table of Contents

Executive Summary…………………………………………... 1 Introduction…………………………………………………… 2 Charge………………………………………………………… 3 Examining Recent Reports on Sustainability………………… 4 Sustainability Survey…………………………………………. 5 Campus-wide Awareness Campaign…………………………. 6 The Relationship of “Lean” and “Green”……………………….. 9 Cost Saving Recommendations………………………………. 10 Conclusion……………………………………………………. 27 Appendixes……………………………………………………

A. Sustainability Survey Results B. Sustainability Graphical View C. Microscale Chemistry in Undergraduate Teaching Laboratories D. Microscale Chemistry Savings E. ACH Workflow F. CSUF Water Costs

Sustainability Project Report

Leadership Development Program, May 1, 2009 1

Executive Summary

In January of 2009, the inaugural class of the Leadership Development Program was tasked by the President's Administrative Board to address four institutional priorities. The Sustainability Project Team, one of four teams, was charged with examining recent campus sustainability reports and asked to make recommendations to advance sustainability without the need for additional funding. The team considered mechanisms to raise campus awareness and identify immediate cost savings or revenue enhancement opportunities that the university could feasibly pursue.

The team examined the recent reports, efforts at other CSU campuses, and conducted a survey to assess campus perceptions and attitudes on sustainability. It is clearly demonstrated that the campus has a long history of sustainability and each division has implemented environmentally-friendly practices.

The cumulative findings of our research guide the following recommendations. It should be noted that the group explored many cost savings ideas and conducted thorough research; the recommendations below represent feasible but bold options for the President’s Administrative Board to consider:

Implement a campus-wide, multi-pronged sustainability awareness campaign to inform the campus community of current efforts and to promote a culture of sustainability;

Promote "green chemistry" by shifting chemistry labs to Microscale which

results in significant cost savings, a decrease in laboratory hazards, and reduction in instructional waste;

Endorse the use of paperless processes to promote cost savings and management efficiencies;

Advance campus-wide green office initiatives to reduce the environmental impact of paper and toner and capitalize on significant cost savings; and,

Mandate sustainable landscaping to conserve water, reduce fuel

consumption and utilize a fraction of the labor of traditional landscaping.

Sustainability is an important issue that can best be advanced by fostering a campus culture willing to adopt green initiatives, leveraging sustainability as a vehicle for cost savings and revenue enhancement, and by highlighting the importance of individual and collective responsibility for protecting and preserving our planet's natural resources.



Introduction

Sustainability has many broad definitions that can be linked to economic, social and environmental implications. In 1989, the World Commission on Environment and Development put forth the most widely quoted definition of sustainability: “To meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

The human toll on the environment is well documented. Regardless of one’s opinion as to the cause, it is clear that global warming is occurring, various species of plant and animal life are being threatened, and the earth’s resources are dwindling.

As a global community we grapple with ways to address and mitigate the damage to our environment and educational institutions are well poised to create a culture that promotes sustainability.

Cal State Fullerton has been long committed to sustainability --- by implementing measures to conserve energy, advancing green computing initiatives, using sustainable design and incorporating sustainability in academic curriculum. While much has been done, the potential to enhance our efforts has exponential impact on our campus and global community.

As an educational institution, we have an opportunity to promote a culture that embraces sustainability not only as a personal issue, but as a global issue. We must all do our part in creating a healthy environment for the next generation of Titans.

This report by the Sustainability Project Team will attempt to examine recent reports on sustainability, the use of a campus-survey to assess campus attitudes and perceptions on sustainability, the need for a campus-wide awareness campaign, and cost savings recommendations in an effort to be "lean" and "green."



Charge President Gordon has identified sustainability as a university goal. His commitment was again underscored as the inaugural class of the Leadership Development Program was divided into four project teams to address institutional priorities.

The Sustainability Project Team was charged with examining recent reports from the Ad Hoc Sustainability Committee and the Sustainability Initiative Study Group and to recommend alternatives for advancing University efforts that do not require funding for a Director and/or Office of Sustainability.

Key factors to consider included mechanisms for:

Raising campus awareness and individual and collective responsibility and ensuring good ideas can be identified and transmitted across divisions and departments.

Identifying immediate cost savings or revenue enhancement sustainability opportunities the campus should pursue.



Examining Recent Reports on Sustainability Two major reports were released by the Ad Hoc Sustainability Committee and the Sustainability Initiative Study Group. Both committees identified a series of recommendations on promoting and ensuring sustainability efforts on our campus. The Ad Hoc Sustainability Committee was a faculty driven effort chaired by Scott Hewitt, current chair of Academic Senate and faculty member in Chemistry and Biochemistry. The committee included faculty members from other disciplines, as well as staff, administrators and students. The committee released the Sustainability Report on November 16, 2007. The report included findings on sustainability literature, seminars and workshops, a survey of CSU and UC campuses, and a survey of faculty on about sustainability. The report included recommendations in the following four areas: (1) Raising awareness and building capacity; (2) Incorporating sustainability throughout the curriculum; (3) Institutionalizing sustainability; and, (4) Forming a Sustainability Task Force. As a result of the report, the Academic Senate formed a 2-Year Sustainability Task Force and three non-permanent committees on sustainability (focusing on awareness, curriculum and institutionalization). In addition, Scott Hewitt presented a sustainability update during the April 16, 2009 meeting of the Academic Senate. The Sustainability Initiative Study Group (SISG) was formed in March 2008 as a result of University Mission and Goals Proposal. SISG was chaired by Willem van der Pol, Physical Plant, and included a cross-section of individuals representing the campus community. The purpose was to develop recommendations as to how our campus should approach sustainability issues through the establishment of environmentally sustainable operational practices and develop the university as a leader in the community on issues pertaining to global warming. SISG released Sustainability at Cal State Fullerton on October 28, 2008. The report looked at sustainability from a broad variety of perspectives, included a SWOT analysis, and put forth 17 recommendations. The recommendations ranged from the signing of the Presidents Climate Commitment, to developing a campus sustainability policy, to creating an academic learning environment for our students. Both committees released comprehensive reports that addressed similar themes. Recommendations focused on making sustainability a priority for the campus, institutionalizing our efforts, and underscoring the need to increase awareness and foster a campus culture that supports sustainability.



The Need for a Campus Awareness Campaign: Results of Our Campus-wide Survey

As our group began to tackle our charge we noticed that, although much work has been done to promote sustainability and green practices on campus, neither students nor campus employees seemed particularly aware of those efforts. In addition, both the Ad Hoc Sustainability Committee and the Sustainability Initiative Study Group made recommendations to raise awareness and create a culture of sustainability on campus. Therefore, the team felt that in order to do this effectively, we must conduct a sustainability survey that would help us better gauge the CSUF campus community's awareness of campus initiatives as well as its interest in becoming involved in green efforts in the future. The survey was implemented from April 6-13, 2009 to the entire campus community. The Division of Administration and Finance implemented the survey to faculty and staff, and the survey was implemented to students through the University Learning and McCarthy Commons. A total of 2,373 people responded, including 1751 students (4.6% of the total student population), 386 staff (23.8% of the total staff population), and 236 faculty (9.7% of the total faculty population). The 14-question survey included a mix of open and closed-ended questions.

Awareness of Current Efforts As expected, only half or less of all students, staff, or faculty agreed or strongly agreed that Cal State Fullerton is sustainable/environmentally friendly. On the specific issue of recycling, a majority of staff (55%) agreed or strongly agreed that CSUF engaged in recycling efforts, but students and faculty tended to disagree or were not sure. In the case of one of CSUF's most impressive green achievements, the new Student Recreation Center, which has just received a U.S. Green Building Council LEED Gold rating, only 59% of students, 54% of staff, and 40% of faculty agreed or strongly agreed that that building was sustainable or environmentally friendly. Based on data analysis of the survey answers, the good news is that if the faculty, staff and students who responded to the survey better understood the rigorous standard of a LEED Gold rating it would strongly and positively correlate with an increase in faculty, staff and students agreeing or strongly agreeing that the campus as a whole is sustainable/environmentally friendly. Only 22% to 38% of the respondents thought that CSUF does a good job of publicizing its sustainable/environmentally friendly practices to the campus. Open-ended comments also reinforced the impression that the campus community is "underwhelmed" by sustainability efforts on campus. One student summarized the sentiment: "While I wouldn't say that CSUF is environmentally irresponsible, I honestly don't notice any on-campus efforts." Willingness to Get Involved In contrast to the anemic percentages the survey revealed for awareness of existing efforts, the responses to the survey questions that probed people's willingness to become involved in future sustainability efforts were very gratifying. Around 74% of the total respondents (79% students, 42% staff, and 88% faculty)



agreed or strongly agreed that CSUF should make sustainability a very high priority on campus. 77% of students, 84% of staff, and 82% of faculty said they would be willing to actively help make CSUF more sustainable/environmentally friendly. Over 90% of the students, staff, and faculty said they are involved in a club or committee that promotes sustainability efforts. (See Appendixes A & B)

Our Own Campus Logo and Branding Given how unaware the campus community is of current sustainability efforts together with the strong evidence gathered through the survey that people are highly supportive of future efforts, our group believes that NOW is an optimal time to make campus efforts known and provide an awareness campaign to promote sustainability at CSUF. To support such an effort, we have developed a campus logo and slogan that will assist CSUF to brand existing and future sustainability initiatives, while raising general awareness of what individuals can also do at home and in the community more generally.

Step Lightly! It’s Our Future is the campaign theme and campus-wide branding effort that will be utilized to promote current sustainability efforts and help foster a campus culture embracing sustainability. Tag lines would follow the branding and could include slogans such as “Reduce, reuse, recycle,” “Green is the new black”, or "Put the ability into sustainability”.



Campus Awareness across the Divisions

Improving the campus community's awareness of sustainability issues at Cal State Fullerton is within the purview of all its divisions, including Administration & Finance, Academic Affairs, Student Affairs, University Advancement, and Information Technology. We envision a multi-pronged promotional campaign, led and coordinated through the future Center for Sustainability at CSUF. In regards to the latter, we fully support the University Mission and Goals Initiative(s) that include a number of cross-collaborative efforts on this campus. Included in this initiative will be a committee including representatives from all of the divisions as well as Associated Students, Inc.

In the following list, we have identified a number of promising awareness measures or activities, organized under the administrative division most suited to carry them out.

The Office of the President:

A message from the President regarding the importance of sustainability and announcing the launch of a sustainability website

Identify and establish community partners to enhance University awareness efforts on sustainability (Government Relations)

Administration & Finance:

Make the campus aware of policies and procedures that impact sustainability as issues arise (e.g. landscape, bookstore, purchasing)

Include information about the campaign in new hire packets for all campus employees - include a “pledge” agreement to be developed

Academic Affairs:

Revisit the Mission and Goals of the University to address sustainability Promote a College of Communications contest where students create

marketing and advertising efforts regarding the campaign (YouTube, collateral materials)

Conduct workshops on sustainability and bring speakers to campus Infuse sustainability in general education courses as it applies to Executive

Order 1033 Feature classes/efforts on sustainability on the campus website Support the development of a minor/major in the environmental studies

department in sustainability

University Advancement

Develop a campus website that highlights current efforts and provides resources

Portal/e-mail/campus bulletins with announcements, a “did you know?”



campaign and ways to be involved Assist in seeking donors for possible support of student scholarships

Student Affairs

Freshman/Peer health programs can carve out some training and or recruitment of students on these committees to support these efforts

New Student Orientation: Include information about the campaign to all new students- include a “pledge” agreement to be developed

Information Technology

Continue highlighting sustainability efforts during Campus Tech Day Provide access to the Campus User Green Computing Guide

http://www.fullerton.edu/it/news/Publications/Green_Computing_Guide.pdf

The implementation of even a few of the promotional ideas listed here would greatly raise the level of awareness of our campus community and foster the type of "green" ethical system that we as a campus and a global society need as we move forward into a more sustainable future.



The Relationship of "Lean" and "Green"

One part of our group's charge involves exploring green initiatives that do not involve significant costs to the university. As we looked into identifying such sustainability initiatives, we discovered that not only is it possible to move toward sustainability without incurring increased expenditures, but there is a close relationship between going green and saving money. The existence of such a relationship should probably not be surprising given the sustainability movement's focus on reducing inputs of non-renewable resources and outputs of pollutants and waste. For instance, the efforts of our Physical Plant department to cut energy costs over the years has simultaneously kept energy costs steady while reducing our campus' carbon footprint, even during a period of rapid growth in enrollment and building square footage. The relationship between green initiatives and saving money is also important from a public relations viewpoint. In a period of economic constraint, those cost saving measures that also bring tangible green benefits are the type of win-win projects that assist our campus to weather budget cuts while inspiring our students, staff and faculty to collaborate around shared goals. During the past few months, our group has researched four distinct areas where we believe that moving the campus in a green direction will also result in significant ongoing savings to the university.



Cost Saving Project #1: Microscale Chemistry

Introduction and Background

Maintaining a pollution-free environment and the efficient handling and disposal of chemical wastes are two subjects of increasing concern to all scientists and educators. The most effective way to achieve the latter is to eliminate chemical waste at the source. One source is Chemistry labs. Reduction of chemical use to the minimum level at which experiments can be effectively performed is known as microscale chemistry. Microscale chemistry is recognized as smallscale chemistry by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry. This environmentally safe method of performing chemical lab processes with small quantities of chemicals does not compromise the quality of chemical applications in education.

Microscale chemistry offers many benefits, including a reduction in chemical use that promotes waste reduction at the source, a reduction in experiment time and storage space, and fewer air emissions, which may result in lower AQMD permit fees. It offers vastly improved laboratory safety by improving lab air quality, reducing exposure to toxic chemicals, and involves no fire, explosion hazards, spills or accidents. Microscale chemistry also reduces costs. It significantly reduces the use of energy in fume hoods, reduces chemical costs as well as replacement costs due to breakage. Other benefits include the fact that microscale chemistry is user friendly to individuals with physical disabilities and, and that it creates a sense of "Green Chemistry," changing the psychology of people using chemicals. Because of its many benefits, microscale chemistry is an important sustainable practice to consider for CSUF.

Chemical Laboratory Hazards

Laboratory accidents occur on a fairly routine basis, but sometimes they can be fatal. In March 2009, a research assistant working on an organic chemistry experiment at UCLA died from third-degree burns after a chemical compound ignited when it was exposed to air. This tragic incident raises serious questions about laboratory safety practices where training, technique, and proper storage of highly flammable liquids and volatile chemicals are critical. By limiting the amount of chemicals used in undergraduate laboratory experiments, micro-scale chemistry can potentially reduce the likelihood and severity of injuries to students. It achieves this by lowering exposure to chemicals and reducing the potential for fire or explosions. We have been fortunate at CSUF compared to UCLA. However, there have been campus incidents involving Bomb Squad activation, and at least two lab related claims were settled in the past dozen years or so. It is expedient to consider microscale chemistry for reasons of safety.

Microscale Chemistry in the CSU One model of microscale chemistry use at CSU San Marcos, which uses microscale chemistry exclusively in their chemistry labs. Dr. Steven Welch adopted this chemistry approach in order to improve safety, for cost savings and pollution prevention. Dr. Welch, Dr. Michael Schmidt and Sally Divis, gave an overview of



the CSUSM Microscale Chemistry program to some of the Sustainability Program team members along with CSUSM Environmental Health and Instructional Safety staff members. They shared information about the benefits they have achieved regarding their three primary goals for microscale chemistry.

Safety. Microscale chemistry has made such a positive impression at CSUSM with the respect to safety, that at least one faculty member has refused to teach at the local community college because microscale chemistry is not practiced there, and she does not feel ‘safe’ in that environment. The equipment and glassware for microscale chemistry can be initially expensive, but these costs are outweighed from a waste and a safety standpoint. A miniscule amount of toxic and hazardous materials used by an inexperienced student is far superior to the amounts traditionally used from the perspective of exposure and hazardous spills.

Cost and Space Savings. Overall cost savings have been estimated at approximately $276,000 since adopting microscale experiments in 82 sections of Organic Chemistry 201L-202L beginning in 1993. The replacement costs for the Microscale equipment are far less than replacement costs for traditional equipment, primarily due to the smaller size. The smaller quantities of chemicals used in the experiments requires less storage space than traditional chemistry. CSUSM does not need cabinets below the lab benches for storage of chemicals, and all the chemicals necessary for a lab class fit on a standard food service tray.

Pollution Prevention. The CSUSM staff affirmed the pollution prevention effect of microscale chemistry. They have experienced an approximate 60-70% reduction in instructional waste stream. Pollution prevention on this scale could save considerable amounts of money at CSUF, where up to $175,000 per year have been spent to dispose of hazardous waste.

Additional Benefits. CSUSM students really appreciate micro-scale chemistry which provides them up to four additional hours per week for pre-lab lecture and pre-lab quizzes than traditional chemistry due to the shorter reaction time needed for lab experiments.

Challenges. CSUSM addressed sources of resistance toward the adoption of microscale chemistry, which were the idea that microscale chemistry does not adequately prepare students to work in industry and the work involved in the switch from standard measurements. Regarding the first issue, the CSUSM staff believes that industry does not often use the equipment found in traditional teaching labs. Industry often uses equipment specific to their facility with automated chemical dispensing systems. In addition, most students taking undergraduate chemistry labs do not ultimately work with chemistry in industry; only 10 – 20% may work with chemistry in industry after graduation, and those workers would need to learn the facility-specific equipment in their place of employment. The second major source of resistance to adopting microscale chemistry that CSUSM encountered involved the significant amount of work in switching from standard measurements to Microscale. CSUSM addressed this issue by assigning this critical task to a grad student for lab credit.



The CSUF Perspective Dr. Jonathan Stoddard was recently interviewed for his prospective on microscale chemistry. He stated, “The organic chemistry laboratories and my research group may easily incorporate micro-scale experimentation to give students a rich learning environment comparable to macro-scale experiments. Microscale experiments reduce the amount of materials, waste, and even hazards (spills, fires, exposure) and are preferable to the larger scale experiments students still run. I wholly endorse a move toward Microscale experiments in the organic chemistry teaching labs. Although I am less familiar with the experiments in general chemistry, a redesign towards Microscale experiments may have similar benefits as those I’ve experienced in my own research group.”

Dr. Hal Rogers, in the Chemistry Department, holds a different view on Microscale. His concerns are about comparability with industry practices and the start up costs of switching to Microscale. Dr. Rogers advised that CSUF practices Miniscale Chemistry, which is identical to industry practices, only smaller. He predicted resistance from some faculty because one cannot scale up using Microscale. He believes it is pedagogically not a good system because it is not used in industry or at the graduate school level. His second major concern is initial start up costs. He estimates it would cost approximately $100,000 to outfit labs with Microscale kits ($500.00 each kit x 25 stations). Dr. Rogers stated that the Chemistry Department has a goal of changing to make ‘more green’ at least one experiment every semester, in some instances, they could even replace chemicals with water. Dr. Rogers made clear that financial assistance from outside the Chemistry Department would help with transition to microscale chemistry, particularly with the purchase of new equipment.

Energy Savings

Microscale can curb the use of fume hoods, which consume a great deal of energy. Curtis Plotkin, Environmental Compliance Manger, feels that we still would require fume hoods even with use of Microscale, but may be able to scale back on their usage.

In summary, microscale chemistry is considered “Green Chemistry.” It vastly improves lab safety, drastically reduces costs and waste, improves the air quality in labs, and facilitates the participation of those with physical disabilities in Chemistry labs. These significant improvements have been achieved in another CSU Chemistry Department that switched to microscale chemistry a number of years ago. Therefore, it is time to seriously consider changing teaching methods in our Chemistry labs to achieve these same positive results on our campus. (See Appendixes C & D)

Microscale Recommendations

1. Shift Chemistry labs from Macroscale and Miniscale to Microscale. All new labs should be designated for Microscale. These new labs should have ductless fume hoods rather than standard size fume hoods. The ductless fume hoods can be maintained by a Lab Tech rather than by Physical Plant.



2. Fund the initial costs of switching to Microscale Chemistry through EHS Hazardous Materials and Physical Plant Utilities budgets The budget funds invested would be offset by savings acquired by shutting down sections of some existing fume hoods.

3. Shift current Chemistry labs to Microscale starting in the fall semester, 2009.

Consultations

Dr. Steven Welch, Chair, Chemistry Dept. CSU San Marcos Dr. Michael Schmidt, Chemistry Dept, CSU San Marcos Sally Divis, Manager, Chemical Stockroom, CSU San Marcos Dr. Fatimah Khan, Chemistry Dept., CSU San Marcos Dr. Harold Rogers, Chemistry Department, CSUF Dr. Jonathan Stoddard, Chemistry Department, CSUF Dr. Mark Filowitz, Chair, Chemistry Department, CSUF John Beisner, Director of University Risk Management Tom Whitfield, Director of Environmental Health & Instructional Safety Curtis Plotkin, Environmental Compliance Manager Leo Lopez, Chemical Hygiene Officer Beena Matthews, Chemical Stock Room Clerk Dr. Scott Hewitt, President of CSUF Academic Senate Humberto Garcia, Hazardous Materials Specialist, CSU San Marcos Regina Frasca, Director of Environmental Health & Safety and Risk Management, CSU San Marcos



Cost Savings Proposal #2: Greening the Office:--Electronic Forms and Workflows The Problem

Sustainability in office practices means green computing, reducing waste, decreasing energy use, and using environmentally friendly products to minimize harm to the environment and maximize office practices that can be sustained into the future. One necessary step is to shift paper-driven office procedures to paperless. This is necessary because paperless processes bring cost savings, management efficiencies, accuracy to populated information on forms, and supports good customer relations (e.g., quick and consistent responses) in addition to benefiting the physical environment.

Cost savings inherent in paperless processes can be significant. Paper-driven administrative processes are wasteful and costly. The U.S. Army estimates new automated electronic processes with digital signatures will save them billions of dollars in processing costs. (http://www-01.ibm.com/software/success/cssdb.nsf/CS/JKIN-7BMS8M?OpenDocument&Site=default&cty=en_us) In the CSUF 2007-2008 fiscal year 357,807 hard copy pages were processed, scanned and archived for Finance and Payroll alone. It has been estimated that 86,000 pieces of paper are used in the annual evaluation process for new hires and continuing employees; this total is for only one of hundreds of campus administrative processes.

To achieve paperless processes, one needs workflow automation, the development of electronic processes for creating, reviewing, approving, forwarding, tracking and storing forms and documents. Within the workflow, original/wet signatures on printed forms are replaced with either electronic approvals via portal authentication or digital signatures (aka e-signatures).

Shifting to paperless office practices requires a significant change in culture. Some employees are comfortable only with paper-driven processes: some faculty copy syllabi instead of using Blackboard; some administrators were reluctant to do electronic approvals for P-card purchases given a choice several years ago. The most frequent resistance to paperless processes we have found involves discomfort with technology, lack of knowledge about information security, concern with the lack of concrete physical reminders about tasks, and concern that designated employees (e.g., administrative assistants) might not be able to access and review electronic copies for signing authorities.

Progress toward Becoming Paperless

CSUF is making progress toward a sustainable office environment by developing electronic administrative processes in a number of areas, several of which are:

ACH work flow: This is an automated electronic process with digital approvals for



the distribution of Financial Aid to students through direct deposit, which eliminated manual review, approval and notification. This process was developed as part of the CMS conversion/installation. This electronic process increases security since the information in the work flow can’t be altered and documentation for each distribution is filed in a central location rather than being distributed by email. Log on is through the portal; an email notification is sent (to reviewers or approvers) that a transaction has been processed requiring review or approval. Each transaction can only be reviewed or approved one time. (See Appendix E)

Grad Check: This involves a review of a student’s academic record and sign off when the requirements for graduation have been met. This process became electronic in the spring 2009 semester through collaboration between Admissions and Records and Undergraduate Programs. This electronic process has achieved quicker turnaround times, ongoing student and faculty access to degree progress, electronic reminder messages and checklist items to keep students aware of the process, and reduction in personnel time for paper handling, forwarding and filing. CMS Finance Module: This module allows electronic transfers of funds and allows Purchase Orders to be created, accessed, reviewed and approved electronically, committing university funds for specific purchases. eForms pilot project: This collaboration between Human Resources and Student Affairs automatically populates information into electronic forms after one piece of identifying information is entered (e.g., CWID, dependent’s name). The eForms software has digital signature and workflow capability, uses portal access, and contains multi-level security. There are examples of totally electronic processes within the CSU’s: San Jose State’s Library School uses e-signatures on electronic travel forms; SJSU has an ebenefits program, http://csu.net/HRAdm/pdf2007/TL-BEN2007-12.pdf, a number of CSU’s (e.g., San Jose, Northridge, Long Beach, Dominguez Hills, Sonoma) have electronic leave accounting practices using a self-service functionality through CMS.

Planning for Further Paperless Processes

Human Resources will have all 300 Informed Filler forms transformed into eForms in 2009; it is estimated that 98% of these forms could be used in totally electronic processes, including electronic approvals or digital signatures. Human Resources is planning to change timesheet submissions and approvals into an electronic process within the next 12-18 months using one of two available modules; when implemented, leave accounting will be entered, tracked, and approved electronically via the portal with Payroll running its programs at the end. The Division of IT is planning an electronic faculty portfolio process.

Immediate Opportunities



The technology is available to develop workflow automation for electronic office processes, as was done for the development of the ACH workflow and the Grad Check process. Numerous individuals at CSUF and the Chancellor’s Office who process a large volume of forms are eager to expand paperless processes.[ix] All Informed Filler forms will become eForms in fall 2009 with the capability for digital signatures. Given the huge volume of paper forms processes at CSUF, there are immediate savings to be gained from reduced paper, paper files/folders, file cabinet space, toner, energy use (printers), depreciation of printing and copying equipment, and employee time spent printing, copying, delivering forms and archiving.

Challenges

Clarifying what requires an original/wet signature rather than a digital one has been a challenge. California allows and encourages digital signatures (http://www.sos.ca.gov/digsig/digital-signature-faq.htm) that meet security requirements. On the other hand, Chancellor’s Office executive orders and audit findings have rarely been explicit about when wet signatures are required. To deal with this ambiguity, CSUF has interpreted an audit finding reading "must be signed" as meaning it needs a wet signature, whereas "must be approved" has been interpreted to mean an e-signature process is allowed. However, according to the IT Audit Manager for the CSU Audit Office, the CSU General Counsel has verbally indicated that the use of electronic signatures would be acceptable as long as they were implemented in accordance with the pertinent code section. The Integrated CSU Administrative Manual group (ICSUAM) is currently making final revisions to a draft Digital Signatures policy for the CSU system. Their timeline was not yet able to be ascertained. While various administrative system-wide groups are dealing with related issues (e.g., Information Security Officers, CABO (led by Vice President Hagan), and ITAC (led by Vice President Dabirian), it has been suggested that a CO directive clearly differentiating between the types of business processes that could and could not be handled without wet signatures would be the best way to get local campus compliance. Until the CO or the ICSUAM delineates the requirements for wet signatures explicitly, CSUF should develop further electronic processes for local campus forms/processes that could use electronic approvals via portal authentication rather than digital signatures.

Electronic Forms and Workflows Recommendations

Develop eForms workflows using FileNet and E-Content for CSUF forms (i.e., no IRS or state forms). Select workflow processes first that do not require a Vice Presidential or Presidential approval or expenditures over $10,000, and for which electronic approvals can be done via portal authentication rather than digital signatures. Select 6-10 workflow processes to be developed each year by designated technology personnel or, if needed, by hiring annuitants. The short-term investment in technology personnel time will result in long-term savings,



enhanced efficiencies and effectiveness.

Develop systems to ensure demonstrated security and authorization for the workflows. The systems must meet the requirements of pertinent California code (CA Government Code 16.5 and technologies indicated in CCR Title 2, Division 7, Chapter 10). The systems must ensure that the approval process cannot be circumvented or spoofed, and that the system provides adequate retention of the documents. Systems must provide for delegated authority capability to review and/or

approve.

Develop systematic electronic scanning to capture, secure and maintain electronic documents. The system must ensure that original documents are captured properly, that electronic documents cannot be deleted or modified (e.g., have the document linked to an unauthorized copy or facsimile) and that they contain controls to ensure the documents are secure. Create sound training for the new electronic processes and on the care needed in scanning originals that will be destroyed. When the ICSUAM group's drafted Digital Signatures policy is approved, confirm that all electronic processes in use conform to that policy, as appropriate. Assign overall responsibility for this project to Administration and Finance; assign responsibility for assuring information security to Information Technology. Future Directions

1. Develop E-Forms workflows for forms and processes requiring a Vice President’s or President’s approval/signature and/or involving amounts greater than $10,000.

2. When the ICSUAM group's drafted Digital Signatures policy is approved, implement technology (e.g., Public Key Cryptography) for digital signatures at all management levels that would be legally acceptable in lieu of wet signatures.

3. Research and select technologies for document management (e.g., Sharepoint). This issue is being investigated by through a Sharepoint Task Force. Goals for such technology include document management and reduced server storage. As much as 1/3 servers’ storage space may be saved through using document management software such as Sharepoint.



Consultations John Lynn, Executive Director, Human Resources Davida Hopkins-Parham, Executive Assisstant, Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs Peggy Bockman, Assistant Dean, College of Communications Kappy Ruzzi, Administrative Support Coordinator, Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs Welson Badal, Director, Administration and Finance IT Stephen Yim, Controller Silvia Gonzales, Human Resources Ryan Alcantara, Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs Chris Manriquez, Interim Associate Chief Information Technology Officer, Information Technology Ken Ly, Director of Internet Technologies IT Linda Main, Associate Director, San Jose State School of Library and Information Science Greg Dove, IT Audit Manager, CSU Office of the University Auditor Kerry Boyer, CSU Chancellor's Office Susan Smith, Lead PIMS Analyst, Payroll Anne Marie Douglas, CSU Chancellor's Office Melissa Whately, CSUF Lisa Moske, SEIR, CSU Chancellors Office Michael Pruitt, Procurement Program Specialist



Cost Savings Project #3: Greening the Office - Recycled Paper and Toner

While it is likely that office processes will become increasingly electronic in the coming years, paper will continue to play a role in most offices. However, with a few key policies, the amount of paper and toner that the university consumes can be considerably reduced with significant cost savings to the university and a large impact on the environment.

Paper's Hidden Costs The paper industry is the world’s 6th largest polluter, after metal mining, electric utilities, metals, chemicals, and hazardous waste recovery (EPA TRI Explorer Report 2007 http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer/industry.htm). In addition, the chemicals used to whiten paper pollute the water used in those processes so that it must be extensively treated before being returned to the general water supply. It is estimated that one ton of virgin uncoated paper--typical office copy paper--requires three tons of wood, 19,075 gallons of water, and generates 2,278 pounds of solid waste. (http://www.edf.org/papercalculator/) Paper makes up about 33% of the municipal solid waste stream in the United States. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090425/ap_on_re_us/us_meltdown_landfills_glance_1)

A Mountain of Paper

Cal State Fullerton currently purchases approximately $400,000 worth of paper each year. About 44% of the paper purchased at CSUF has some recycled postconsumer waste (PCW) content. This contrasts with a figure of 63% for the University of California system in 2008. Individual CSU campuses also have achieved higher percentages of recycled paper purchases, including CSU Long Beach with about 78% recycled and Humboldt State at 91% recycled. http://www.calstate.edu/Csp/recycle/recycle.shtml Humboldt State has achieved its high percentage at least in part because its university president has instituted a campus-wide 100% postconsumer content recycled paper mandate. http://www.humboldt.edu/~pcw/ The State of California requires that at least 50% of a state agency’s purchases include recycled content.

CSUF spent $255,000 on toner procured through OfficeMax in the 2007/08 fiscal year. None of those toner cartridges included recycled content. Recently, OfficeMax has begun the process of adding 75 new ink/toner cartridges to their catalog that are either recycled or provided by Disabled Veteran suppliers.

Challenges to Change There have been several obstacles to Cal State Fullerton moving towards a more sustainable use of paper. One is the perception that paper with recycled content is of inferior quality to virgin paper, a concern which had some validity years ago when recycled paper first came on the market, but has been solved through better manufacturing processes that have made most recycled paper virtually indistinguishable from virgin varieties. The other main obstacle is the common use of the p-card and the CSU-wide OfficeMax contract to procure paper in



campus offices. At OfficeMax, virgin paper remains the lowest priced paper, while recycled PCW paper comes with a higher price tag. As long as offices and departments across campus are free to buy smaller quantities of the cheapest paper available through OfficeMax, the amount of paper purchased in this manner will include a large amount of virgin paper. Currently, only 29% of total CSUF purchases of OfficeMax paper include recycled paper. However, campus OfficeMax customers could be limited to purchasing recycled paper and toner through the OfficeMax catalog, were the campus to issue such a directive.

Recycled Paper and Toner Recommendations

There are several steps the university can take to achieve more responsible paper, toner and printing/copying practices on campus.

1. Institute a Recycled Paper and Toner mandate across campus.

As already mentioned, at least one CSU has already instituted a recycled paper policy. In 2005, Humboldt State introduced their 100% Recycled Paper Policy, which mandated that paper purchases on campus consist of 100% postconsumer waste content. Humboldt had a powerful mandate to move forward with this policy because their Associated Student Association had earlier voted a $2.00 per year student fee to pay for the policy. The University President went ahead with the policy without using any money from student fees, although higher prices were charged through card swipes at copiers and printers in student labs. Since 2005, there have been only twelve times that the policy had to be waived, mostly due to problems with very old copiers. As 100% recycled PCW paper is more expensive than 30% recycled paper, Cal State Fullerton might consider starting with the less expensive 30% postconsumer content option which would cost no more than about 10% over what we paid for similar virgin paper last year.

In the case of toner, the move to recycled varieties would result in an immediate cost savings of around 30%.

2. Make more use of bulk paper purchases to lower recycled paper costs.

Several CSU campuses have been making use of state contract # 1S-08-75-41 to purchase 30% recycled paper at prices well below the lowest prices OfficeMax offers for comparable virgin paper. Paper prices are notoriously volatile but Cal State Fullerton can secure prices for recycled paper that match and in some cases beat the current prices paid for virgin paper by purchasing in bulk. Bulk purchasing of paper would require a suitable storage location, student labor to deliver centrally purchased paper to campus offices and labs, and a billing mechanism to allow campus offices to pay for the delivered paper. The ideal location for paper storage would be near a loading dock and freight elevators and have a minimum of 640 square feet available to store one truckload of paper. Billing for departmental purchases by the ream or case could use the new DSF billing software (http://edigital.fullerton.edu/DSF/storefront.aspx), while copying or printing on centrally managed printers/copiers could be billed on a per page



basis. Around 40% of the expected savings of $50,000 on CSUF paper purchases annually would be needed to pay for storage costs and 40 hours per week of student labor. Another model worth investigating would be to locate a company that would allow the campus to purchase in bulk but deliver on demand.

3. Centralize the management of campus networked printers and merge that operation with the copier fleet already managed by IT.

All of the CSU campuses that have already made use of bulk recycled paper purchasing also have a more centralized management of campus printer and copier equipment than we currently have at Cal State Fullerton. If a central entity is in charge of all networked printers and copiers across a campus, it becomes much easier to supply that equipment with environmentally friendly materials, such as recycled paper or recycled cartridges with biodegradable toner. It is also easier to maintain environmentally friendly equipment settings such as duplex printing or non-color default printing that minimize waste. At CSUF, two trends have come together to make the idea of centralized printer/copier management a logical next move for the campus. First, the centrally managed campus copier fleet is now composed of 170 multifunction copier/scanner/printer machines that can serve as printers as copiers as well. Secondly, IT has recently piloted a successful program that replaced most personal printers with networked printers for all employees in the IT division. As the campus contemplates whether to pursue expanding the use of networked printers instead of personal printers in other divisions, it would be useful to consider that a centralized printer/copier fleet already exists that could become the base for such a centralized operation. Clear policies would have to be developed, spelling out the cases where employees could get approval for a personal printer in case of need. But even if a fraction of the personal printers on campus were removed, significant savings could result from more efficient printing, reduced energy costs, and savings in toner cartridges. CSUF's contract for the 170 Ricoh multifunction copiers currently deployed on campus includes toner supplies, so that increased use of existing machines will net a clear toner savings, at least under the contract currently in force.

4. Explore GreenPrint, an enterprise-wide software product that helps users print only what they need. GreenPrint (http://www.printgreener.com/) is coming out with a version 2 Enterprise Edition of its software that automatically removes unneeded pages from a print job and allows a user to specify exactly what should be printed. The software also allows the enterprise to track pages printed by user, printer, or application, making it easy to identify areas where there may be unnecessary printing. The company estimates that about 17% of an institution's costs of printing will be saved by using their software. Jessica Wansart, a company sales representative, would like to add Cal State Fullerton to their trial list.



Consultations

Don Green, Director, Contracts and Procurement Sally Yassine, Associate Director, Contracts and Procurement Matthew Brunner, Printing Supervisor, Humboldt State University Mike Sternfeld, Manager, University Print Shop, CSU Long Beach Duane McCune, Buyer, CSU Chico Dale Wymore, Manager, University Printing Services, CSU Chico Terry Jarmon, Manager, Rollout and Reprographics, Information Technology Jack Plump, Publication Services Jessica Wansart, GreenPrint Andrew Kang, Business Operations, Student Health and Counseling Center Jane Iacovetti, Fiscal Services, Pollak Library Willem Van der Pol, Director Physical Plant



Cost Savings Project #4: Sustainable Landscaping

Introduction and Current Conditions

Globally, our climate is referred to as a ‘Mediterranean’ climate, which is dry for no less than six months out of the year. This climate exists in South Africa, Chile, Australia, and of course, around the Mediterranean. Unfortunately, developers in Southern California have insisted on installing landscapes similar to our east coast and Europe, where it rains all year. The result is the extreme use of water to simply keep the landscape alive for those dry six months out of the year.

Water is a precious and limited commodity. Commercial and residential outdoor water use in the U.S. accounts for more than seven billion gallons of water each day, mainly for landscape irrigation. Almost half of this consumption is lost or wasted due to evaporation, wind, or improper irrigation design and maintenance. California is in the midst of a water crisis and the Governor has mandated that the per person water usage in California be cut by 20% by the year 2020. NOTE: According to the O.C. Register, our water will be rationed down by 20% on

July 1st. The price of water is predicted to sky-rocket in the coming years and the state will face annual water shortages, even in normal rainfall years. Local municipalities are under enormous pressure to reduce water usage and to limit the amount of water used in landscapes.

Sustainable Landscaping Practices

Sustainable practices are those which emphasize the environmental impacts and benefits and include actions that conserve, recycle, and reuse the resources which are invested.

A landscape developed with sustainable practices will improve the environment by conserving water and other resources and reducing chemical applications which will have an impact on the overall environment. A sustainable landscape will also reduce labor making it less expensive to implement and maintain.

The key to creating a sustainable landscape is understanding that the design process should be considered first. Plant selection, implementation, and maintenance build on the design process, each having sustainability as a major consideration.

There are five (5) considerations in designing a sustainable landscape:

1. Functional - A functional landscape allows for the easy accomplishment of movement, work, recreation and leisure that occurs in and around the landscaped areas.

2. Maintainable – A maintainable landscape provides for reduced maintenance at a particular level or condition. This lowers labor costs and makes maintenance operations easier.



3. Environmentally Sound - The proper design of plants greatly affects the quality of the landscape over its entire life. A philosophy of "right plant, right place" as well as "right plant, right purpose" can dictate the amount of environmental, disease, and insect stress that a plant can tolerate.

4. Cost Effectiveness – The above-listed considerations should be met regardless of the budget. However, ongoing maintenance costs of a functional, maintainable, and environmentally sound landscape will be lower which equates to considerable savings throughout the life of the landscape.

5. Visually Pleasing - The considerations of functionality, maintainability, environmental soundness, and cost effectiveness will provide the framework needed to create a visually pleasing landscape and will add to the overall aesthetic value.

What is Xeriscape?

One method to achieve a goal of sustainable landscaping is called xeriscape, which is a concept which emphasizes the environmental impacts and benefits of landscapes and includes actions that conserve, recycle, and reuse the resources which are invested. Xeriscape uses less water, takes less maintenance, uses no fertilizers or pesticides, improves property value, is pollution free, and provides for improved wildlife habitat.

The term xeriscape was coined by the Denver Colorado Water Department in 1978, the word itself is derived from the Greek word for dry, ‘xeros’ and landscape. An interesting fact is that much of the water in the West comes from the Colorado River and originates from the Rocky Mountains where the term xeriscape was created.

In Colorado, the belief is the Colorado River is literally on a collision course with human demand. Some of the communities in Southern California use water from the Colorado River and unfortunately can be perceived as wasting more water than in the Denver area. A xeriscape landscape contains plants that fit the local climate, are selected because they avoid losing water to evaporation and have root systems that retain water from run-off. Typically plants selected can be called “Drought-Tolerant” and “Succulents”. Turf is not used and is replaced by covering the soil with gravel, decomposed granite, sand or mulch. The use of this soil covering helps keep the moisture insulated beneath and retains more water for longer periods of time making it available for the roots of the plants above.

Challenges of Xeriscape

A xeriscape requires more soil preparation than a turf installation. When installing turf, the soil only needs to be renovated to a depth of approximately 8”. While the trees, shrubs, and ground covering plants within a xeriscape require the removal of the native soil to no less than twice the depth and girth of the container the plants are sold in.



The irrigation for a xeriscape planter is usually a bubbler or drip system and requires more labor to install. Finding defects is more difficult during establishment and maintenance because one cannot see water spraying from nozzles. The Irrigation Technician must use moisture meters, soil probes or pull out the drip lines while the water is running to see the actual stream of water. Drip irrigation also includes filters or strainers to clean the water of impurities and sediment.

These filters or strainers need to be changed or cleaned on a monthly or weekly basis depending on how clean the water supply is to ensure circulation. The actual drought tolerant plants are slow growing and take longer to fill in the planter space than lush green plants. Some varieties or plant selections can be thought to look like weeds or wild brush. This affirms the importance of careful selection and use of such plants as background or use high on slopes.

In a xeriscape, weeds and litter can be missed because the Landscaper is staying out of the landscape for longer periods of time. A maintenance crew would only need to work a xeriscape half as often or less than with a traditional landscape. Maintenance strategies will undergo drastic changes from weekly mowing to quarterly rigorous thinning and renovating requiring the landscape crew to adjust schedules. At CSUF, the hardscape will still need to be cleaned or pressure washed on the same weekly schedule thus creating more of a challenge to schedule in a new way.

Traditional culture demands traditional lush, green and thirsty landscapes, requiring a cultural change and a change in mindset. There is a shared viewpoint that a lush green landscape keeps the outdoor area cooler because water evaporated off the plants raises the humidity on hot dry summer days. Even though this is an expensive air conditioner, this could be construed to be a benefit to maintaining the lush green landscape as long as you can afford to use the required amounts of water. There is bound to be truth to this belief since cities have installed lakes in developments and have stated that less water evaporates from a body of water than from turf.

Advantages of Xeriscape

Water savings equals lower water bills and frees water up for other important uses like people. Population increases will demand more water and one source is the landscape. CSUF is constructing new housing for 1,000 additional students as well as a high population of commuter students. CSUF will have more demands on the water supply while being mandated to use 20% less water by 2020.

A xeriscape will demand no more than half, if not a fraction, of the labor of traditional landscape. The installation of xeriscapes in new construction projects and renovations will allow CSUF to stay with existing Landscape Crew levels while the campus expands across Nutwood Avenue.

A decrease in turf area will eliminate the use of some mowing equipment and will



save energy in the form of fuel. The decrease in the numbers of mowers is an important benefit to the campus with increased mandates in air quality standards requiring particulate collectors for diesel equipment. CSUF would eliminate the need to install these devises on mowers by instead selling the mowers.

Xeriscape plant selections used in an efficient design can take full advantage of annual rain fall and retain water to eliminate run-off and erosion. A good grading plan will incorporate bio-swales to channel the rain water to areas where it can pool under rocks and gravel and be stored long after a rain storm. This creates a micro reservoir within the landscape as opposed to losing rain fall to run off down the storm drains.

In summary, if and when water is rationed in California, a xeriscape will survive where a traditional thirsty landscape will not. It will benefit the campus to be proactive with established xeriscape that will not only survive, but actually thrive on rationed amounts of water.

Sustainable Landscape Recommendations

1. Mandate sustainable landscapes with all new construction on campus. Currently, without any such mandate, the campus is moving in this direction with a more sustainable landscape being incorporated around the construction of the new Student Housing Complex. This may be due to a temporary mindset since we are currently about to be restricted in water use with a statewide water shortage. Historically, we have seen development in California install drought tolerant landscapes when there is a water shortage and then lapse back to thirsty landscapes in times when water is more plentiful. A campus-wide mandate would prepare us for water shortages and conserve more water over longer periods of time.

2. Replace existing thirsty, traditional, turf packed landscapes and install sustainable landscapes, throughout the campus on renovation projects. This may seem like an expensive step until the savings in water, labor, equipment, and energy are analyzed. These savings in water consumption can stem from the obvious to the more discrete with savings in energy and equipment which are discussed in greater detail. (See Appendix F)

Consultations

Willem van der Pol, Director, Physical Plant Steve Dugas, Physical Plant Doug Kind, Physical Plant



Conclusion

Sustainability is clearly a high priority not only for our campus leaders, but for the campus community. If as a global society we strive to “meet the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,” then we can begin to live within our own means. Mitigating our impact on the environment has become a top priority for our elected officials, business and community leaders, and our global community. Educational institutions are well-poised to be champions of this movement, especially given that we are responsible for cultivating the next generation of leaders.

Cal State Fullerton’s mission and goals underscore a commitment to meeting the evolving needs of our students and community. Sustainability is on the forefront of that evolution and embracing its principles ensures that our students can make meaningful contributions to society and see the world as a global community. Our role as an educational institution coupled with our university goals calls upon us to foster a culture that embraces sustainability. Creating a "green" culture helps individuals easily accept change when it’s presented --- whether it means pedagogical changes in the classroom, changing from antiquated systems to innovate paperless solutions, or giving up the aesthetic look of green lawns.

Now, more than ever, with a fiscal crisis on a state and national level, sustainability can be used as a tool to reinforce the relationship between "lean" and "green." We can implement sustainability efforts to cut costs and enhance revenue. For those reticent to embrace sustainability, it can be an impetus to implementing and accepting environmentally friendly practices. The impact we have on our environment is part of our collective consciousness. We can no longer deny the catastrophic consequences of global warming and climate change. Individuals, institutions and communities are well aware that earth as we know it cannot possibly sustain our way of life and can threaten our future existence. Individually, we all have to do our part by reducing our carbon footprint. Collectively, we can be the driving force in ensuring a healthier planet. We all must remember to STEP LIGHTLY, because our future depends on it.

CSUF Leadership Development Program Sustainability Project

CSUF Leadership Development Program

Sustainability Survey Questions & Results

April 2009



April 2009

1) I engage in sustainable/environmentally friendly efforts at home, such as recycling, buying green

products, and/or conserving water and energy.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither

Disagree or Agree

Agree Strongly Agree

Student 5% 5% 12% 52% 26%

Staff 5% 3% 5% 53% 34%

Faculty 8% 1% 5% 40% 46%

2) I consider the CSUF campus to be sustainable/environmentally friendly.


Disagree or Agree


Student 5% 16% 32% 39% 8%

Staff 4% 14% 32% 44% 6%

Faculty 7% 23% 34% 31% 5%

3) CSUF engages in recycling efforts.


Disagree or Agree


Student 8% 21% 29% 35% 7%

Staff 5% 17% 23% 45% 10%

Faculty 7% 23% 28% 35% 7%

4) The new CSUF student recreation center is a sustainable/environmentally friendly building.


Disagree or Agree


Student 2% 3% 36% 37% 22%

Staff 2% 1% 43% 32% 22%

Faculty 1% 2% 57% 21% 19%

5) CSUF includes the topic of sustainability/environmentally friendly development in its courses

and/or programs of study.


Disagree or Agree


Student 5% 19% 38% 31% 7%

Staff 2% 9% 67% 20% 2%

Faculty 4% 17% 48% 27% 4%



6) CSUF does a good job of publicizing its sustainable/environmentally friendly practices to the

campus.


Disagree or Agree


Student 8% 25% 29% 31% 7%

Staff 8% 35% 29% 23% 5%

Faculty 14% 36% 28% 18% 4%

7) If I had more information regarding sustainability/environmentally friendly actions and

practices, I would be more likely to engage in green efforts at home.


Disagree or Agree


Student 4% 5% 0% 59% 32%

Staff 8% 25% 46% 18% 3%

Faculty 6% 13% 20% 39% 22%

8) I would be willing to actively help make CSUF more sustainable/environmentally friendly.


Disagree or Agree


Student 3% 3% 17% 50% 27%

Staff 1% 2% 13% 54% 30%

Faculty 2% 4% 12% 45% 37%

9) Sustainability should be a very high priority at CSUF.


Disagree or Agree


Student 2% 3% 16% 44% 35%

Staff 2% 11% 45% 41% 1%

Faculty 1% 3% 8% 39% 49%

10) I am involved in a club or committee to promote sustainability/environmentally friendly efforts.

Yes No

Student 6% 94%

Staff 6% 94%

Faculty 9% 91%



10b) List of clubs and committees

Student

-Project earth

-Social Justice Summit

-Roots and Shoots

-Greenpeace

-Sigma Phi Epsilon

Staff

-Sierra club

-various committees whose work affects sustainability

-IT Green Computing Initiative

Faculty

-Sierra Club

-Senate Sustainability Task Force

-University Sustainability Study Group

11) I am student, staff or faculty.

Responded 2009 Campus population Percentage of respondents

Student 1751 37765 4.6%

Staff 386 1622 23.8%

Faculty 236 2439 9.7%

12) I am … years old.

<18 18-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 >65

Student 0% 80% 12% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0%

Staff 0% 6% 9% 11% 8% 8% 14% 14% 16% 10% 4%

Faculty 0% 2% 3% 11% 14% 7% 15% 13% 15% 14% 6%



13) Are you interested in receiving information regarding sustainability/environmentally friendly

efforts? If yes, how would you like to receive this information?

Student = 402

Staff = 229

Faculty = 108


Sustainability Survey Questions &Results

14) Comments

Total of 309 comments were received, 193 from students, 67 from staff and 49 from faculty.

More than 30% of the comments were related to CSUF recycling efforts, in particular they

persive a lack of recycling effort on our campus.

Student

• The number one issue is the lack of multiple bins for glass, plastics, paper. Students are not sure

how active CSUF is at being “green.”

” There should be trashcan designed specifically for recycling bottles and soda cans. I've seen this

recycling program at USC and it is very successful.”

” While I wouldn't say that CSUF is environmentally irresponsible, I honestly don't notice any on-

campus efforts.”

• Many students said they are aware of trash being separated for recyclables, but they are not

sure if they believe it.

“I heard that CSUF recycles products that are thrown into the same trash can as everything else, but

how can I know if this is true?”

• Many wanted to see solar panels in place.

“I think CSUF should invest in solar power and other alternative fuels. This would be a great step

towards sustainability and it would enhance the image of the school.”

Staff

• Number one comment from staff is that there are not separate recycling bins around campuses

and in the offices. Like the students, many have heard that trash is separated, but they don’t

believe this.

“I don't think the majority of campus knows how the trash is recycled. Both students and staff are

unaware of the recycling process.”

“There needs to be more outdoor recycle bins for students.”

• Many mentioned conserving water by having different landscaping.

“When planting on campus water retentive plants such as red apple, etc. should be used. Grass and

plantings on campus are overwatered; this is obvious when toadstools are growing in the planted

areas.”



Faculty

• Number one complaint is that CSUF does not promote on campus recycling with multiple bins,

or that they heard CSUF sorts the trash but they do not believe this statement.

“I would like to see more recycling bins around campus for cans, bottles and paper goods. A lot of

this goes in only one place.”

• Many wanted to see less watering on landscape and less water use in bathrooms, as well as less

use of non-recyclable materials.

“I think we have too many landscaping features that require too much water for a desert climate.”

”LAX Airport has more visible sustainability efforts than does CSUF. When I ask about discarding

paper, I get told to throw it in the trash but no one confirms that it is recycled. ALL CAMPUS FOOD

VENDORS SHOULD USE RECYCLED, SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTS. THE AMOUNT OF STYROFOAM ON

THIS CAMPUS IS APPALLING.”

CSUF Leadership Development Program Sustainability Survey

CSUF Leadership Development Program

Sustainability Survey

Descriptive Statistics & Graphical View

April 2009


1. I engage in sustainable/environmentally friendly efforts at home, such as recycling, buying

green products, and/or conserving water and energy.

Student Frequency Percent Cumulative

Percent

Strongly Disagree 88 5.0 5.0

Disagree 80 4.6 9.6

Neither disagree or agree 218 12.5 22.0

Agree 910 52.0 74.0

Strongly Agree 455 26.0 100.0

Total 1751 100.0

Staff Frequency Percent Cumulative

Percent


Disagree 10 2.6 7.8


Agree 205 53.1 66.3


Total 386 100.0

Faculty Frequency Percent Cumulative

Percent


Disagree 3 1.3 8.9


Agree 95 40.3 53.8


Total 236 100.0


1. I engage in sustainable/environmentally friendly efforts at home, such as recycling, buying

green products, and/or conserving water and energy.

Student

Staff

Faculty


2. I consider the CSUF campus to be sustainable/environmentally friendly.


Percent


Disagree 285 16.3 21.5


Agree 687 39.2 92.1


Total 1751 100.0


Percent


Disagree 54 14.0 18.4


Agree 170 44.0 94.6


Total 386 100.0


Percent


Disagree 55 23.3 30.5


Agree 72 30.5 95.3


Total 236 100.0


2. I consider the CSUF campus to be sustainable/environmentally friendly.

Student

Staff

Faculty


3. CSUF engages in recycling efforts.


Percent


Disagree 359 20.5 28.6


Agree 611 34.9 92.9


Total 1751 100.0


Percent


Disagree 64 16.6 22.0


Agree 175 45.3 89.9


Total 386 100.0

Faculty Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Percent


Disagree 54 22.9 29.7


Agree 84 35.6 93.2


Total 236 100.0


3. CSUF engages in recycling efforts.

Student

Staff

Faculty


4. The new CSUF student recreation center is a sustainable/environmentally friendly building.


Percent


Disagree 53 3.0 5.4


Agree 646 36.9 78.5


Total 1751 100.0


Percent


Disagree 4 1.0 3.1


Agree 122 31.6 78.0


Total 386 100.0


Percent

Strongly Disagree 2 .8 .8

Disagree 4 1.7 2.5


Agree 49 20.8 81.4


Total 236 100.0


4. The new CSUF student recreation center is a sustainable/environmentally friendly building.

Student

Staff

Faculty


5. CSUF includes the topic of sustainability/environmentally friendly development in its

courses and/or programs of study.


Percent


Disagree 326 18.6 24.0


Agree 544 31.1 93.1


Total 1751 100.0


Percent


Disagree 34 8.8 10.9


Agree 76 19.7 97.9


Total 386 100.0


Percent


Disagree 40 16.9 21.2


Agree 64 27.1 95.8


Total 236 100.0


5. CSUF includes the topic of sustainability/environmentally friendly development in its

courses and/or programs of study.

Student

Staff

Faculty


6. CSUF does a good job of publicizing its sustainable/environmentally friendly practices to

the campus.


Percent


Disagree 432 24.7 33.2


Agree 538 30.7 92.6


Total 1751 100.0


Percent


Disagree 135 35.0 42.7


Agree 91 23.6 95.3


Total 386 100.0


Percent


Disagree 86 36.4 50.0


Agree 42 17.8 96.2


Total 236 100.0


6. CSUF does a good job of publicizing its sustainable/environmentally friendly practices to

the campus.

Student

Staff

Faculty


7. If I had more information regarding sustainability/environmentally friendly actions and


Students Frequency Percent Cumulative

Percent


Disagree 67 3.8 7.4


Agree 824 47.1 74.6


Total 1751 100.0


Percent


Disagree 30 7.8 10.4


Agree 179 46.4 81.6


Total 386 100.0


Percent


Disagree 30 12.7 18.2


Agree 93 39.4 77.5


Total 236 100.0


7. If I had more information regarding sustainability/environmentally friendly actions and


Student

Staff

Faculty


8. I would be willing to actively help make CSUF more sustainable/environmentally friendly.


Percent


Disagree 50 2.9 6.0


Agree 879 50.2 73.4


Total 1751 100.0


Percent


Disagree 6 1.6 3.1


Agree 208 53.9 69.7


Total 386 100.0


Percent


Disagree 10 4.2 6.4


Agree 105 44.5 63.1


Total 236 100.0


8. I would be willing to actively help make CSUF more sustainable/environmentally friendly.

Student

Staff

Faculty


9. Sustainability should be a very high priority at CSUF.


Percent


Disagree 44 2.5 5.4


Agree 771 44.0 65.0


Total 1751 100.0


Percent


Disagree 6 1.6 2.8


Agree 175 45.3 59.3


Total 386 100.0


Percent


Disagree 7 3.0 4.2


Agree 91 38.6 51.3


Total 236 100.0


9. Sustainability should be a very high priority at CSUF.

Student

Staff

Faculty

MICROSCALE CHEMISTRY IN UNDERGRADUATETEACHING LABORATORIES

Applicable RegulationsOverview of ProcedureWaste Minimization ProcedureKnown LimitationsSafety & HealthPrecautions/Personal ProtectiveEquipmentBenefitsDisadvantagesProject Related Costs

Summary:Beginning in 1989, the University ofMichigan (U-M) Department of Chemistrybegan implementing microscale chemistrytechniques in the undergraduate teachinglaboratories. Microscale laboratoryexperiments reduce the amount ofchemicals necessary to performundergraduate chemistry experiments toa fraction of what was historically used.

In addition to decreasing the quantities ofchemicals purchased and amount ofchemical waste generated, microscaletechniques have proven to be safer andmore cost effective than traditionalexperiments.

Applicable Regulations40 CFR Parts 260-268.

State of Michigan Act 451 Part 111.

Overview of ProcedureMicroscale chemistry is a pollution prevention method that decreases the amount ofchemical waste generated during laboratory experiments. This concept was firstintroduced by chemistry professors at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine.Standard chemistry procedures are re-written for individual experiments andspecialized microscale equipment is utilized to perform the work. In some cases, theamount of a particular chemical needed for an experiment has been decreased by asmuch as 99 percent. The U-M has implemented microscale chemistry in itsundergraduate inorganic and organic teaching laboratories.

Waste Minimization ProcedureDue to the number of laboratory experiments that have been converted tomicroscale, it is not practical to detail the individual procedures. However, thefollowing table presents a before and after comparison of the amounts of chemicalsused, as well as the cost of those chemicals, for an Aldol Condensation experiment.These quantities represent the per student amounts.

Chemical Traditional Quantity(gm or ml)

TraditionalChemical Cost

Micro Quantity(gm or ml)

Micro QuantityChemical Cost

Acetone 5 $0.03 0.073 <$0.01Ethanol 60 $0.60 4.1 $0.04Benzaldehyde 5.3 $0.81 0.212 $0.03

Microscale Chemistry in Undergraduate Teaching Laboratories http://www.p2000.umich.edu/chemical_waste/cw7.htm

1 of 3 2/18/2009 9:32 AM

Sodium Hydroxide 5 $0.19 0.24 $0.01p-Anisaldehyde 5 $0.71 0.2 $0.03p-Chlorobenzaldehyde 5 $0.36 0.2 $0.013,4-Dimethoxybenzaldehyde 5 $0.77 0.2 $0.032-Furaldehyde 5 $0.47 0.2 $0.021-Naphthaldehyde 5 $1.27 0.2 $0.05

Total Cost* $5.21 Total Cost* $0.23

*All costs were obtained from the 1994/95 Aldrich catalogue.

Known LimitationsDue to the small quantities of materials used, it may not be possible to have enough"product" left at the end of an experiment to run a series of experiments. Forexample, experiment #1 might have generated a product that was used to runexperiment #2, etc. However, in the typical teaching laboratory, the "products"typically have no value and are disposed of as waste.

Safety & Health Precautions/Personal Protective EquipmentFollow all applicable safety and health protocols and regulations as established byyour institution.

BenefitsMicroscale techniques in the laboratory:

Reduce chemical waste produced at the source;Improve laboratory safety by decreasing the potential for exposure tochemicals and reducing the potential for fire/explosion hazards;Improve air quality due to the greatly reduced volumes of solvents and othervolatile substances used;Reduce laboratory costs for chemical purchase and disposal;Reduce the time required to perform experiments due to shorter chemicalreaction times;Decrease the amount of storage space necessary for chemicals; andEncourage students to think about waste minimization.

DisadvantagesTo begin teaching microscale techniques in the laboratory, the institution mustpurchase microscale equipment and textbooks. However, the costs can be recoveredin a relatively short period of time due to savings realized on purchase and disposalcosts of reduced quantities of chemicals.

Project Related CostsThe table below presents a per student comparison of traditional vs. micro chemicalpurchasing costs for the Chemistry 216 course at the U-M. The experiments wereperformed during the 1996 spring semester. All costs were taken from the 1994/95Aldrich catalogue.

Experiment Traditional Cost Micro CostAcetanilide 0.46 $0.05Adol Condensation $5.20 $0.23Sodium Borohydride Reduction $0.16 $0.02Electrophilic Aromatic Substitution $1.01 $0.02Diphenylacetylene $0.99 $0.10Tetrapheynlcyclopentadienone $2.11 $0.08Total $9.93 $0.50

The purchasing cost of chemicals for performing microscale experiments is 99.5


2 of 3 2/18/2009 9:32 AM

percent less than for traditional experiments.

Disposal costs for the individual experiments were not calculated. However, thequantities of chemicals used for microscale experiments are typically less than onetenth the amount used in traditional macroscale experiments. Disposal costs shouldbe reflective of this significant decrease.


3 of 3 2/18/2009 9:32 AM

Microscale Chemistry Savings with Haz Waste and Chem PurchasesSensitivity Analysis

Year version 1: 2.5% DR version 2: 2.5% DR 5% Discount0 (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) 1 179,000 65,000 65,000 2 179,000 65,000 65,000 3 179,000 65,000 65,000 4 179,000 65,000 65,000 5 179,000 65,000 65,000

Present Value $713,759.32 $197,052.54 $172,777.13

Savings with EnergyYear version 1 version 2

0 380,000 1 210,000 2 210,000 3 210,000 4 210,000 5 210,000

Present Value $975,623.98

sustainability report coverhr.fullerton.edu/documents/professionaldevelopment/ubi/...green building...

Documents