UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER

Established 1850

“Anatomy of a Successful IPM program – a Sanitarian’s Perspective”

Peter Castronovo, Senior Sanitarian, University of Rochester

EH&S Components

• Fire Safety• Industrial Hygiene

(Employee safety)• Radiation safety

• Pest Control• Sanitarian’s Office• Hazardous Waste

Management

EH&S reports directly

Senior VP for Administration

So other departments know not to monkey around with us!

Pest Control Responsibilities• Structure (continued)

– University Properties• 6 residential complexes (1,131 dwellings)• Other miscellaneous residential/commercial

properties

– Food Service• 21 major food preparation centers• 200+ minor food prep/food serving kitchens (not

including individual student kitchens)

Pest Control Responsibilities• Structure

– University of Rochester• River Campus (57 buildings)• Eastman School of Music Campus (9 buildings)

– University of Rochester Medical Center• Strong Memorial Hospital (736 beds)• Ambulatory Care Complex• School of Medicine and Dentistry• Medical Research Buildings• School of Nursing• Vivarium (6 floors)• Eastman Dental School• 25 off-site medical complexes• Highland Hospital and associated practices

Pest Control Responsibilities• “Customers”

– 20,000 employees– 8,000 students– 3,000 residents– 1,000 inpatients– 4,000 outpatients– 10,000 visitors– 46,000 total

University of Rochester’sEnvironmental Health & Safety Department

Pest Control Unit’s Mission StatementUtilizing a fully Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach, protect the health & safety of

the University Community and property by first preventing structural pest problems from developing, by emphasizing exclusion and proper sanitation, and by minimizing and quickly abating problems that do occur by

using industry best practices and environmentally sound methods.

Pest Control Unit Philosophy:

We are Guardians of the environment, rather than simply eliminators of pests.

What are the two most powerful pesticides

available for the structural pest control industry?

EXCLUSION & SANITATION

PCU Methodology

1) Prevent pests from entering the facility

– “Keep them the hell out!”

2) Deprive them of food and shelter– “Keep them homeless and hungry!”

3) Establish a threshold, if able– “Tell the customers they’re pansies

and live with it!”

PCU Methodology

4) Attempt non-pesticide methods to eliminate them

– “Kill ‘em by stomping!”

5) Use the least toxic pesticides capable of achieving maximum control

– “Make sure what you use kills the bugs and not the people”

There are a lot of “ings” in our program

• Inspecting• Identifying• Reading• Educating• Cleaning• Monitoring• Enforcing• Selling

There are a lot of “ings” in our program

• Notifying• Committing• Cooperating• Believing*• Living** Not only do we and our University

customers have to believe in IPM, it has to be a way of working life.

History of Pest Control Unit1981 “In-House” unit analysis performed

1982 PCU formed under Environmental Health & Safety DepartmentStaffing:– Manager .25 fte– 2 FTE Technicians

Philosophy: “Use the least toxic pesticides available to achieve maximum control.” Prevention was a component of the program.

1985 University residential complexes included in service

One FTE Technician added

History of Pest Control Unit (continued)

By 1995 “True” IPM Program in place• No organophosphates• No preventative treatments• Inspections increased• Education increased• New Philosophy:

1. Prevention is the most important component of pest control

2. Use non pesticide methods if feasible3. Use the least toxic pesticides and methods

available that achieve an acceptable threshold of control.

History of Pest Control Unit (continued)

Mid 1995 Staffing: Cut ½ FTE Technician

1996 Staffing: Cut ½ FTE Technician ACF and several off-site medical complexes added

1998 Highland Hospital and affiliated operations added

1999 New Medical Research Building added

2001 MRBX added

Results of U of R IPM Program

• Monetary• Customer Satisfaction• Effectiveness• Health & Safety

Monetary Results

StaffingReduced technical staffing by 33% (one FTE) while adding 20% more space

Savings: $45,000 per year with benefits

Monetary Results (continued)

Pesticides/Control devices1994 - $5,4382002 - $3,563

Savings = $1,875

34.5% reduction not including inflation adjustment. Major services added since 1994 including Highland Hospital, Ambulatory Care Facility and Medical Research Building

Customer Service Results

• Customer Surveys– “Ad Hoc”– Regular Users

Ad Hoc Survey Grading Results

1993 1994

Satisfactory Service 79% 84%

Professionalism 83% 88.5%

Provided I nformation 83% 87.5%

Percentage of “A” grades received within each category

Before true IPM Program

After true IPM Program

1995 1996 1997 1998 2002

Satisfactory Service 88.5% 80.3% 76.4% 87.9% 86.1%

Professionalism 90.0% 81.1% 77.8% 87.9% 90.2%

Provided I nformation 87.0% 84.5% 79.6% 88.9% 84.7%

Ad Hoc Survey Grading Results

Percentage of “A” grades received within each category

Effectiveness Results# of complaints/follow-ups

Pre-I PM Early I PM Mature I PM

1991-1994 1995-1998 1999-2002

# complaints (avg/yr) 1016 867 866

# follow-ups (avg/yr) 968 1186 655

ratio: fu/c 0.95 1.37 0.75

Effectiveness (continued)

• German Roach Monitoring ProgramAs a regular part of the pest control program, the

PCU monitors roach populations in certain high risk or problem areas such as food service establishments. This helps the unit identify areas that have problems as well as the severity of the problem. It also demonstrates the effectiveness of treatments with the roach program in general.

Roach Population Monitoring (avg./trap)

77% Reduction - Danforth Dining Center

5 yr avg. 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990

1.37 .65 2.42 .56 2.14 1.1

5 yr avg. 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998

.32 .18 1.27 .14 0 0

Roach Population Monitoring (avg./trap)

95% Reduction – Wilson Commons

5 yr avg. 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990

1.82 .0 1.84 1.69 4.58 1.0

5 yr avg. 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998

.09 .27 0 0 0 .17

Health & Safety Results

• 1990– 390 oz. Roach &

ant aerosol– 378 concentrated

oz. Dursban LO– 33 concentrated

oz. Dursban 2E

• 1997 – present– 0 oz. Roach & ant

aerosol– 0 oz. Dursban LO– 0 oz. Dursban 2E

Results (continued)Conclusion – based on hard data:

True IPM Program Yes NoFewer employees?

Lower pesticide costs?Better customer satisfaction?Fewer complaints?Less follow-ups?Less roaches in food areas?Less residual pesticides?Less risk/mistakes?

Manager sleeps better at night?