university of rochester established 1850
DESCRIPTION
UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER Established 1850. “Anatomy of a Successful IPM program – a Sanitarian’s Perspective” Peter Castronovo, Senior Sanitarian, University of Rochester. Fire Safety Industrial Hygiene (Employee safety) Radiation safety. Pest Control Sanitarian’s Office - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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?