2. UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER Established 1850 “Anatomy of a Successful IPM program – a Sanitarian’s Perspective” Peter Castronovo, Senior Sanitarian, University of Rochester

3. EH&S Components Fire Safety Industrial Hygiene (Employee safety) Radiation safety Pest Control Sanitarian’s Office Hazardous Waste Management

4. EH&S reports directly Senior VP for Administration So other departments know not to monkey around with us!

5. 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)

6. 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

7. 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

8. University of Rochester’s Environmental Health & Safety Department Pest Control Unit’s Mission Statement Utilizing 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.

9. Pest Control Unit Philosophy: We are Guardians of the environment, rather than simply eliminators of pests.

10. What are the two most powerful pesticides available for the structural pest control industry?

11. EXCLUSION & SANITATION

12. 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!”

13. 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”

14. There are a lot of “ings” in our program Inspecting Identifying Reading Educating Cleaning Monitoring Enforcing Selling

15. 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.

17. History of Pest Control Unit 1981 “In-House” unit analysis performed 1982 PCU formed under Environmental Health & Safety Department Staffing: –Manager.25 fte – 2 FTE Technicians Philosophy: “Use the least toxic pesticides available to achieve maximum control.” Prevention was a component of the program. 1985University residential complexes included in service One FTE Technician added

18. 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 feasible 3.Use the least toxic pesticides and methods available that achieve an acceptable threshold of control.

19. 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

20. Results of U of R IPM Program Monetary Customer Satisfaction Effectiveness Health & Safety

21. Monetary Results Staffing Reduced technical staffing by 33% (one FTE) while adding 20% more space Savings: $45,000 per year with benefits

22. Monetary Results (continued) Pesticides/Control devices 1994 - $5,438 2002 - $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

23. Customer Service Results Customer Surveys –“Ad Hoc” –Regular Users

24. Ad Hoc Survey Grading Results Percentage of “A” grades received within each category Before true IPM Program

25. After true IPM Program Ad Hoc Survey Grading Results Percentage of “A” grades received within each category

26. Effectiveness Results # of complaints/follow-ups

27. Effectiveness (continued) German Roach Monitoring Program As 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.

28. Roach Population Monitoring (avg./trap) 77% Reduction - Danforth Dining Center 5 yr avg.19941993199219911990 1.37.652.42.562.141.1 5 yr avg.20022001200019991998.32.181.27.1400

29. Roach Population Monitoring (avg./trap) 95% Reduction – Wilson Commons 5 yr avg.19941993199219911990 1.82.01.841.694.581.0 5 yr avg.20022001200019991998.09.27000.17

30. 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

31. Results (continued) Conclusion – based on hard data: True IPM ProgramYesNo Fewer 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?        