As a university with a total campus population of 10,571 and a residential population of 6,220, Princeton has considerable environmental impacts associated with its operations. For example, for the year 1994, 3000 tons of solid waste were disposed of at a cost of $409,000, 64,000 lb. of hazardous waste were generated, $6.5 million was spent on the campus energy bill, and 55.5 million sheets of copier paper were used. At such a large scale, waste is inevitable and every effort should be made to increase efficiency and environmental consciousness.
In order to improve Princeton University's relationship with the environment, the Princeton Environmental Reform Committee has conducted an environmental audit. This audit represents a year of research on campus energy use, solid waste/recycling, water use, food procurement and disposal, procurement policies, construction of new facilities, transportation, and academic environmental opportunities. The current status of each issue is reported and recommendations are made for ways to mitigate the universityŐs environmental impact and to operate more efficiently.
In most cases, the recommendations are accompanied by significant cost-saving opportunities for the university. For example, an additional $77,000 could be saved per annum by increasing recycling by just 10%. Adoption of the suggestions given in the audit would also help the university stay abreast of increasingly strict state environmental regulations. In addition, the university would benefit from implementation of these changes by earning the reputation of an environmentally progressive institution.
The audit provides an overview of current campus policy concerning each of the areas of impact. The following are short summaries of these policies:
Solid Waste
Following the 1987 passage of the New Jersey Statewide Mandatory Recycling and Source Separation Act and subsequent state mandates to re-cycle 60% of its municipal solid waste (MSW), Princeton University estab-lished a comprehensive recycling program that sought to provide ade-quate recycling facilities for the entire university community. Currently, Princeton fully recycles its organic waste (leaves, branches, trees) and its construction waste (stone, asphalt, scrap metal) through Grounds and Maintenance, while its recycling of such items as newsprint, mixed paper, plastic HDPE 1 and 2, cans, bottles, juice/milk cartons, and cardboard are handled by Building Services. The former category of recyclables makes up 87% of the mass of recycled materials due to its sheer weight; this allows Princeton to claim a 66% recycling rate per year. When the former category is removed and only the latter considered, only 25% of the university's MSW is diverted from disposal in a landfill.
Financial benefits obtained from recycling have little to do with re-cycling revenues and much to do with avoidance of landfill costs. At a cost of $118 per ton placed in a landfill, the 25% of the university's recycled waste yields a savings of over $136,000. In the same year, Princeton spends about $409,000 to send its remaining, non-recycled MSW to an landfill. If the university were to raise its percentage of recycled MSW to 35%, a fig-ure that Building Services believes is possible, it would save an additional $77,000 each year through landfill avoidance. This money could be used to hire a full-time employee to serve as recycling coordinator.
Toxic Substances
With regards to radioactive waste, the university has consistently been found to act in accordance with local, state and federal regulations concerning these materials, and the university has been extremely successful in reducing the amount of radioactive wastes produced. However, regarding hazardous wastes there is insufficient record-keeping at the purchasing and disposal levels to adequately monitor use and disposal, making the potential for unnecessary waste quite high. In terms of wastewater, more attention needs to be given to the sources of recent viola-tions, and for medical waste it is recommended that a thorough and far sighted cost-benefit analysis be carried out for the potential implementation of an on-campus medi-cal waste disposal system. These issues can best be addressed by creating an administrative advisory committee with the responsibility of assessing and implementing the recommendations given here. This committee could also educate the many generators of toxic waste on source reduction and chemical exchange possibilities.
Procurement
An investigation of the university's procurement system revealed many praiseworthy Ňgreen-buyingÓ strategies such as buying in bulk, reducing or eliminating the use of toxic substances, and buying recycled products. However, the large volume of paper consumed annually on campus remains a concern. Recycled paper accounts for only a small percentage of the paper used in printing and copying done on campus. In addition, much of the overall paper use was found to be wasteful, for very few people double-side their copies or laser print-outs. Methods for using paper more conservatively are suggested, and it is recommended that the university adopt an environmentally conscious purchasing policy in which a given set of criteria are applied to all purchases. A university policy of using recycled paper is also suggested, the additional cost of which would easily be offset by the given paper use reduction strategies.
Food Services
Princeton University Dining Services has made a concentrated effort to reduce its production of food-related solid waste. In the past two years, Dining Services has purchased recycled napkins, implemented a ŇBring Your Own MugÓ program and reduced food waste through improved recycling of disposables and leftover food. These changes have not only had environmental bene-fits, but have, in many cases, significantly cut costs. In addition to Dining Services, undergraduate students also eat at the upperclass eating clubs, the Brown Co-op, or the 2-Dickinson Co-op. However, Dining Services, as the only university-operated food source and the primary food provider, is the focus of this chapter.
Energy Use
The use of energy at Princeton University has steadily increased throughout this century due to the addition of modern energy-intensive facil-ities and the growth of the campus population. The university, however, has had a responsible track record with regard to the implementation of energy conservation practices. This has been due for the most part to the economic benefits of conserving energy. Energy conservation also results in a decreased consumption of non-renewable resources and a decrease in the generation of air pollution. Future efforts at energy conservation will continue to provide cost savings for the university as well as lessen the universityŐs impact on the environment. These efforts can be guided by taking a pro-active approach to adopting energy-conserving policies or technologies whenever feasible and educating the campus community about the simple steps people can take to help the university conserve energy and money.
Water Use
There is no formal data processing system for water use on campus. Raw data is maintained by the Business Office in Macmillan building. There is also no official water conservation program on campus. Water conservation is limited to only a few low-flow fixtures in bathrooms around campus. The university spent $794,000 last year on water compared to $708,000 in FY 93. This was largely caused by an increase in water usage by the addition of new buildings. With the addition of new facilities, the price of water usage on campus will continue to rise. Therefore, increased conservation and closer monitoring would result in significant savings.
Academic Opportunities
In response to a growing interest among students and faculty in topics of environmental science and policy, Princeton established the Program in Environmental Studies in 1991. The program has brought two courses, ENV 301 and ENV 302, to the university curriculum; the former approaches envi-ronmental issues from a science and engineering perspective, while the second deals with the same is-sues from a policy and values perspective. A variety of courses in other departments now feature a more emphasized environmental com-ponent as well. The program also requires participating upperclassmen to incorporate an envi-ronmental topic into their independent work; seniors must participate in an inter-disciplinary thesis colloquium to discuss their research throughout the year. The Environmental Studies program re-mains as a cer-tificate program and not a degree specif-ically to draw on the resources of the entire uni-versity and be accessible to a wide range of students. It is recommended that the uni-versity expand its environmental course offerings to include more practical applica-tions of coursework, specifically addressing campus environmental issues.
The Princeton Environmental Institute was founded in 1992 with the pur-pose of integrating the areas of environmental science, technology, and policy. PEI emphasizes collaboration and research between academic departments and helps appoint faculty members with specific environmental interests. PEI also considers curriculum revi-sions and seeks funding for senior independent work and other student research pro-jects. In addition, PEI or-ganizes visiting lecturers and promotes other campus activities through its monthly newsletter.
New Facilities
In the past, Princeton has made only small changes toward lessening its environmental impact through improved con-struction practices. Princeton is about to enter a phase of increased construction, where sub-stantial appropriations for buildings will be made each year. New buildings, including a campus center, will be built and multiple build-ings will be undergoing major renovations. This new construction represents an ideal opportunity for the university to adopt a new, stringent, ecologically-conscious construction policy that will achieve three primary goals: allow the university to operate more efficiently, promote proper ecological sensitivity, and raise Princeton's status as an ecologically-aware in-stitution. The university should adopt clear environmental building policy that would take build-ing use as well as de-sign into account. Both of these are factors which should be consid-ered early on in the construc-tion process.
Transportation
Over the past few years, the university has been very active in efforts to curb vehicle emissions resulting from employee commuting. In accordance with the 1990 Clean Air Act legislation, Princeton has organized several programs focused on increas-ing average vehicle passenger occupancy rates and reducing overall miles traveled. A full-time Employee Transportation coordinator and several committees have gener-ated numerous creative initiatives addressing transportation and environmental con-cerns while opening up a healthy discussion over policy options ranging from flexible work hours to alternatively-fueled vehicles.
Other Areas of Impact
Air Quality
Air quality is a pervasive environmental and health concern; poor air quality can have serious adverse impact on one's health. Princeton University, as a research facility, has its share of workplace air quality concerns. The laboratories, the pesticide-treated athletic fields, the art studios, and boiler plant are all sources of local toxic emissions. Of greatest concern is that the air quality of the workplace environment be safe for students and staff. For the most part, the university does not monitor its air emissions. Boiler plant emissions have been monitored in order to apply for an air permit to build the cogeneration plant. Radon and asbestos concerns are treated to meet EPA air quality standards. The university is encouraged to improve the monitoring of emissions and air quality and mitigate potential hazards. Specifically, improved ventilation is needed in 185 Nassau Street where toxic art materials are used in closed spaces.
Pesticides
Toxic pesticide use on campus grounds has dramatically dropped since the adoption of IPM, Integrated Pest Management. However, some carcinogenic chemicals are still used, especially in the upkeep of the athletic fields. While acknowledging the university's commendable record of safe grounds management, PERC recommends the investigation of environmentally safe herbicides to replace the carcinogenic ones currently used.
Water Quality
Drinking water for Princeton University is provided by the Elizabethtown Water Company. Water is routinely tested for a number of contaminants at the source. The most serious safety concern regarding drinking water is lead contamination from lead plumbing and solder at the site of use. In accordance with health regulations, neither lead plumbing nor solder are used at the university. Testing done by an independent lab, Princeton Testing Laboratory, Inc., a firm used by the Department of Grounds and Buildings Maintenance, has consistently found lead levels in campus water low and well within EPA drinking standards.
POTENTIAL FOR IMPROVEMENT
In the past twenty years, Princeton has made many positive environmental changes. One of the oldest and most successful is the CSCS energy management system. Implemented in the early 1970s, this system cost $3 million to install, but saves a $1 million a year. The CSCS manages heating and air conditioning for 70-75 of the 278 buildings on campus. Princeton has also recently won a recycling commendation from the state for exceeding the mandatory 60% recycling rule. This can be attributed to a fairly comprehensive recycling program, which not only recycles cans, paper, and newspaper, but also concrete and yard waste. Most recently, Dining Services has implemented an innovative leftover food disposal system in which food waste is sent to a local pig farmer. This system promises substantial cost savings from avoided landfill costs and transport fees.
While these are all encouraging advances, even the most prized improvements are found to have their flaws. For example, the high recycling percentage can be attributed to the large weight of concrete, 4300 tons in 1994. This was half of the total reported recycling tonnage for the year. The percentage of the remaining solid waste that was recycled actually has decreased recently. This fact more accurately represents the environmental situation at the university. This situation must change, however, in the coming years as mandated state recycling percentages for specific waste streams are increased. Princeton should concentrate on being ahead of the state schedule by increasing personal responsibility for recycling.
This example indicates that while Princeton has many beneficial institutional environmental policies, there is much room for improvement. What Princeton is lacking most is a firm commitment from the administration to support for environmental initiatives. The following are some of the recommendations included in the audit which could be easily implemented with sufficient administrative support:
PRINCETON AS AN EFFICIENT INSTITUTION
Many of the recommendations of the audit would provide direct benefit for the university by creating a more efficient institution. The following recommendations would result in significant savings:
1. Increase recycling percentage and accompanying savings by hiring an environmental coordinator.
Waste disposal in the densely populated state of NJ has become increasingly expensive ($117/ton). The university currently spends $409,000 to send its non-recycled waste to a landfill. The 25% recycled municipal solid waste represents a savings of approximately $136,000 through the avoidance of landfill costs. If the university were to raise its percentage of recycled MSW to 35%, an action which the university will soon be required to take as recycling regulations become increasingly strict, it would save an additional $77,000 each year through landfill avoidance. It is therefore recommended that the university take actions to raise the percentage of its recycled MSW. The best way to accomplish this would be to hire an environmental coordinator who would both work towards increasing student compliance with recycling and coordinate the implementation of other recommendations given in this audit. Brown University, Georgetown University, and Tufts University are examples of universities with environmental coordinators These coordinators are the reason for the effective environmental management programs at these schools.
2. Establish an official university committee to focus on hazardous waste issues and set up a surplus chemical exchange program.
Last year, Princeton spent $200,000 on hazardous waste disposal. As a large research university, some hazardous waste use is inevitable. However, because of the environmental problems and the costs associated with excessive hazardous waste disposal, steps should be taken to reduce the amount of waste generation. A committee made up of members of the faculty, Occupational Health and Safety, and PERC could be established to work towards reducing the amount of toxic waste generated and promoting greater awareness of the environmental and safety issues involved with hazardous material use. This can be done, in part, by encouraging the use of microscale experiments in student labs and establishing an accurate and accessible record keeping system for toxic substances through the use of an on-line computer file.
Currently there is no central inventory of the chemicals used in the laboratories on campus. A program set up to allow researchers looking for chemicals to contact others with excess amounts would reduce unnecessary hazardous waste. It is recommended, therefore, that the committee establish an online chemical exchange database. Those looking for chemicals could then directly contact the owner to discuss purity and arrange exchange. The University of Vermont has established such a system which has been operating with widespread faculty support.
As long as the program is operated on a small scale -- as we expect will be the case -- costs will be minimal. In terms of transport of any chemicals, a small scale uptake of the program and its primary use within departments would not significantly increase the level of chemical transport which already takes place on campus. This option would also provide a means for better monitoring of chemical holdings on campus, data which is not readily available.
3. Use energy more economically.
Last year the university's energy bill was approximately $6.5 million. Approximately $400,000 is saved per annum through electricity conservation which has focused on upgrading old lighting. However, energy conservation is an area where the university has barely scratched the surface. Relatively easy changes include the installation of low-flow showerheads which save hot water heating costs and pay for themselves in less than a year. Further suggestions include the installation of motion detectors in campus bathrooms and the retrofitting of hallway lights with compact fluorescents. These projects can offer further savings through power company rebates. This was demonstrated at the University of Arizona where over $87,000 was saved in 1993 following the installation of energy-saving light ballasts and updated fluorescent lights.
Computers, like lighting, represent a large portion of campus energy consumption. A standard computer monitor uses more energy as a 100 watt light. Available devices which shut off monitors of idle cluster computers will result in substantial savings, both in electricity and in cluster cooling, since the unused monitors will not be producing excess heat. Projected energy savings for such a system are $28,000.
4. Use paper more conservatively.
Up to 40 cases of copier paper are purchased by many departments each month. Among the most prolific users are the Psychology, Woodrow Wilson School, and Molecular Biology Departments. Because of the widespread destruction of our National Forests that results from logging, virgin paper use should be dramatically reduced. This can be done in a number of simple ways including: increased use of e-mail, adoption of a campus wide double-sided copying policy, increased use of recycled paper, and fewer campus mailings. Some universities, such as Wesleyan and Stanford, have official poster policies which restrict campus mailings and postings.
One institutional change at Princeton which would help significantly in the effort to reduce paper use would be the alteration of the current copy click-system which has a base price per copy, regardless of whether copies were made single or double-sided. By charging for paper and copying separately, the university would reward reduced paper use and save on paper costs, costs currently absorbed by the university budget.
5. Increase campus-wide environmental awareness.
Many of the problems with the university's environmental impact could be alleviated through the commitment of the university to broader practical environmental awareness. Specific examples include easy measures such as an official campus recycling guide. This document would be distributed by Building Services not only to undergraduates, but all residents of university owned housing. A project of this sort was initiated by the recycling coordinator at Georgetown University with much success.
Another easy solution involves waste disposal guides in lab manuals. University waste water is monitored at six lab locations by Stony Brook Sewerage Authority for 21 different pollutants/parameters, (e.g. for levels of lead, silver, mercury, pH). For the past two rounds of tests, the university has been found to be in violation of the pollution standards. The causes of these violations remain unresolved. If this trend continues, the university will be subject to fines and perhaps federal action. It is, therefore, recommended that the university mandate better lab disposal education.
Environmental education should not stop with students, but should be incorporated in all employee training, especially building services employees and dining services workers. Job descriptions for building services workers do not currently contain a section on proper recycling protocol, nor is there specific on-site training. This lack in employee education has effectively nullified the most current well-intended environmental policies.
PRINCETON AS AN ENVIRONMENTALLY PROGRESSIVE INSTITUTION
Some changes require both administrative commitment and financial support. The following suggestions outline a more ambitious view of PrincetonŐs environmental future:
1. Strengthen the Environmental Studies Program.
In comparison to Environmental Studies Programs at other schools, PrincetonŐs program is lacking in technical training. Duke University, for example, offers a major in environmental studies including courses in environmental economics and sustainable development. Cornell offers courses in environmental law. Courses in these areas are crucial for educating future environmental managers.
The university is urged to offer a course through the Environmental Studies Program or the Woodrow Wilson School that teaches students how to conduct environmental audits. Such a course would provide students with valuable tools for use in many careers and would pay for itself as students discover new areas of cost-savings for the university. This course would also provide a unique opportunity for students to work closely with administrators.
2. Adopt a university-wide policy of using recycled paper for all paper uses.
The university lags behind other institutions in its paper procurement policy. Recycled paper accounts for only a small percentage of the paper used in printing and copying done on campus. A policy of buying and using recycled paper of a high post-consumer waste content should be adopted. Use of recycled copier and printer paper campus wide is an important action for the university to take to help conserve limited natural resources. The minor cost difference between recycled and non-recycled paper should be considered a necessary cost of running a responsible university. This cost difference may be even less once a con-tract with the manufacturer is established, since the university's buying power may lower the price of recycled paper.
Increased use of recycled paper is only the beginning. The state of New Jersey has instituted a mandatory purchasing policy for all its agencies of paying up to 10% more for products that are environmentally friendly. Considering the many other cost savings associated with the recommendations given in this audit, the university could certainly handle such a policy.
3. Commit to green building guidelines for future construction. Build an energy efficient, environmentally friendly campus center.
Six major projects are currently in the planning stages for Princeton. Among these projects is the proposed Campus Center. This building project offers the university a tremendous opportunity to clearly demonstrate its environmental commitment. By following the outlined building policy which emphasizes architect choice, construction materials/methods, building design, and building use, Princeton could serve as an example for other universities. Because few universities have adopted such a progressive measure, this is an opportunity for Princeton to be a forerunner in its environmental commitment rather than lagging behind as it has on many other issues.
This audit demonstrates the combined effort of faculty, students, administrators, and staff toward a more positive environmental future for Princeton. However, we acknowledge its limitations and encourage the university to sponsor its own studies in response to many of the questions we have raised. Professional cost benefit analysis could be done by an environmental coordinator or a university committee using faculty talents. Implementation of all recommendations would require campus-wide cooperation and would be facilitated by a presidential mandate and an official committee.
Tufts University sponsored a presidential convention in Talloires, France where university presidents pledged their dedication to making their campuses more sustainable. Princeton did not participate. Other schools such as Stanford, UCLA, and University of Illinois initiated environmental audits, some of which were conducted by professionals. PrincetonŐs environmental audit was started five years after all these schools. Brown University, Georgetown, and Tufts all have university employees who work specifically on campus ecology while Princeton has no such position.
While the initial effort of the audit is an important first step, it will be left to the university administration to institutionalize widespread change. Certainly such change will be an improvement of Princeton and of the world.