2006 Sustainability Report

Report Contributors:

The 2006 Sacramento State Sustainability Performance Report was created through the collaborative efforts of the following people and organizations.

Name	Position	Department
Mike Christensen	Asst. VP for Risk Management Services	Risk Mgmt. Services
Kirtland Stout	Interim Director, Risk Management and BC Planning	Risk Mgmt. Services
Tom Custer	Radiation Safety Officer	Env. Health and Safety
Steve Leland	OS & IH Specialist	Env. Health and Safety
Bernadette Tano	OS & IH Specialist	Env. Health and Safety
Bob Hitomi	Environmental Specialist	Env. Health and Safety
Kathleen Reynolds	Manager, Integrated Waste Management	Facilities Services
Nat Martin	Energy Conservation Coordinator	Facilities Services
Joanne Davis	Disability Leaves Manager	Human Resources

April 26, 2007

Table of Contents

I. Introduction.. 1

II. Energy & Water.. 2

A. Energy Consumption.. 2

B. RENEWABLE ENERGY

c. Water Consumption.. 7

III. Health & Safety.. 8

A. Audits.. 8

B. Business Continuity Plans.. 9

C. Committees.. 9

D. Compliance Programs.. 9

E. Database management. 10

F. Industrial Hygiene.. 11

G. Injury and Illness.. 12

H. Ionizing & Non-Ionizing Radiation.. 15

I. Learning Management System (LMS) 16

J. Medical Surveillance.. 16

K. Monthly Performance Statistics.. 16

L. Training.. 17

IV. Learning and Governance.. 18

A. 2006 Business Continuity Plan Development. 18

B. 2005-2006 Emergency Preparedness Fair.. 18

C. Environmental Management System EMS (ISO 14001) 19

D. Improving Regulatory Compliance Training.. 19

E. Incident Reduction.. 19

V. Materials & Waste.. 19

A. Recycling/Diversion.. 19

B. Hazardous Materials Management. 22

VI. Planning and Purchasing.. 26

I.   Introduction

Risk Management Services (RMS) is tasked with the responsibility of preparing an annual report on the state of safety and environmental performance at Sacramento State. Recognizing that safety and environmental responsiveness are fundamental goals of all campus organizations, it was determined in 2004 that this report would attempt to capture and report all University environmental and occupational safety activities regardless of departmental boundaries. In addition, this report now emphasizes the fact that safety and environmental activities – those activities which promote the concept of reduce, reuse, and recycle – fit under the broad category of “sustainability.” To appropriately reflect the sustainable contributions of the entire campus community, the report title has been changed from the Environmental Health and Safety Report to the Sacramento State Sustainability Performance Report.

The term “sustainability” was originally applied to the conservation of natural resources in a long term perspective. Sustainability and sustainable development refer to the attitude and discipline of seeing the end from the beginning, making today’s decisions with our future in mind. Sustainable practices include all activities (i.e., economic development, the environment, safety and health, food production, energy, land use policies, social organization, etc.) that are designed to positively impact our environment and the healthful survivability of future generations.

To assist institutions of higher education in establishing sustainable programs, the Good Company published a document entitled, “Sustainable Pathways Toolkit for Universities and Colleges.” In the Good Company’s publication, sustainability indicators are separated into five categories: Energy & Water, Health & Safety, Learning & Governance, Materials & Waste, and Planning & Purchasing. Beginning with Section II, this report is divided into these five categories.

Through the implementation of sustainable programs and processes and the monitoring of key indicators associated therewith, Sacramento State is ensuring the effectiveness our programs, the physical and financial health of the environment in which we work, and protecting and conserving our resources for future generations.

II.  Energy & Water

A. Energy Consumption

Metric	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
BTU’s/ft^2 of Building Space	90,441	92,415	90,338	102,378	97,985

The best indicator of energy saving efforts is the measure of British thermal units (BTU’s) per square foot (ft²) of building space used on an annual basis. This indicator normalizes or averages energy use over the total square footage of the campus. Electricity, natural gas, and solar energy usage are converted and included in this indicator. From 2002 to 2004 the index varied slightly despite a significant increase in building square footage. In 2005 several operational changes took place which offset conservation efforts. They include:

• Summer building operating hours were increased to accommodate more class offerings.

• In 2005, eight new computer labs were added throughout the campus. The number of computer labs increased from 4 in 2000, to a current total of 12. When they are open these labs require cooling year around.

• Beginning in 2005, the campus chilled water distribution system started operating 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. This change in operation was implemented to accommodate the 54 new telecom communication closet cooling units and the new Academic Information Resource Center (AIRC), a high-tech, energy intensive building.

Facilities Service’s goal is to continue to decrease energy used per square foot of building space to as low as is reasonably possible considering occupant needs. This decrease will be accomplished through continued application of renewable/green technologies, energy conservation measures, demand management strategies, and by including sustainable design principles to address the following four operational categories:

• Energy and Water
• Materials and Waste
• Health and Safety
• Planning and Purchasing

Some of the elements of Leadership in Engineering and Environmental Design (LEED) principles will also be included in new building designs, as appropriate.

Note: The BTU/ft² indicator is comprised of electricity, natural gas and solar from both the general fund buildings and auxiliary buildings. This data has not been weather corrected, meaning that it has not been normalized for significant weather changes for the years covered.

Energy used	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Natural Gas (Therms)	1,087,329