University of Minnesota Cleans House

Not long ago, the storage of hazardous chemicals turned heads at the University of Minnesota. In fall 1998, the university’s Facilities Management Division realized that empty and partly filled cleaning product containers were piling up in over 900 janitors’ closets. Safety technician Jason Simpson saw disturbing signs. With custodians cleaning 11 million square feet every day, the container pile-up represented not just a logistical disposal problem but an ongoing employee health threat and a long-term danger to the environment.

In a groundbreaking review for a major university, Clayton Handt, environmental health specialist, and his colleagues organized the Material Review Board to do a top-to-

bottom evaluation of the division’s cleaning products. By winter, the board heard confounding and alarming findings. It learned that Facilities Management purchases nearly 500 different products, many of which were redundant. Worse, the shopping list included 18 varieties of floor strippers that contain some of the most toxic chemicals found in janitorial products. Many ingredients in these petrochemical-based products are listed on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) toxic chemical hit list, the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). The handling, use and disposal of these petrochemicals requires strict adherence to EPA and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations.

The board decided to clean house. It set two goals: consolidate the number of janitorial products purchased and find safer products. Last spring Facilities Management cut from 500 to 135 the number of approved chemicals it purchases. Then, in winter 1999, the board took another landmark step. In consultation with the Carbohydrate Economy, it began exploring the advantages of replacing its petroleum-derived products with less toxic cleaners derived from plant matter. The result is a first for a major university—Facilities Management will phase out its present reliance on the old highly toxic products by 2005, the year its janitorial staff will switch entirely to biobased cleaners.

Made from renewable resources, biobased cleaners avoid petrochemicals altogether. They contain chemical extracts and oils derived from citrus fruits, nuts, seeds and vegetable crops, and range from soy methyl esters to lactic acid esters and dimethylsulfoxide. Case studies show that biobased cleaners easily meet or exceed the performance of petrochemical ones.

Several reasons prompted the university’s decision to kick the petrochemical habit. Project Coordinator Zone Manager Marshall Skule foresaw the inevitable enactment of stricter regulations requiring the use of less toxic chemicals. Many petroleum-based solvents and cleaners contain chemicals that are on the EPA’s TRI list, and that list is expected to grow. So rather than replace existing toxic petrochemicals with other petrochemicals that have the potential to end up being regulated, Skule and his colleagues wanted a long-term solution. Because of reduced health and environmental dangers, chemicals derived from plant matter are not listed, nor are likely ever to be listed, on the EPA’s TRI list. Skule and his colleagues agree that making the shift to less toxic products protects the health and safety of the university’s employees, students and surrounding environment.

The change also makes economic sense. Petrochemical-based ingredients carry hidden costs, starting with training. Large institutions typically spend more when they have to train their employees in the proper handling and use of products that fall under EPA and OSHA regulations. At the University of Minnesota, this cost was felt acutely. Given the scope of its custodial needs, Facilities Management has organized the school—one of the nation’s largest land grant universities, straddling both banks of the Mississippi River—into six geographical zones. The profusion of some 500 products was complicated enough, but further complicating matters was that different products were in use from zone to zone. Every time employees transferred to a new assignment, they had to be retrained. Skule calculates that by standardizing the use of janitorial products across all zones, the university will save around $20,000 per year in their training program alone.

And the costs continue even when the petrochemical products are used up. Federal and Minnesota state regulations strictly govern the disposal of hazardous petrochemical products, something that does not come cheaply for a large institution. Accounting for the presence of TRI-listed cleaning products, Skule estimates that the university pays an average disposal cost of $250 for each container with unknown content—a sum much in excess of what many of the products cost before being opened. Containers range from one quart to a 55-gallon drum and volume of disposed content varies, making it difficult to calculate the disposal cost per gallon. By switching to bulk mixing systems and reducing the number of individual container purchases, the university stands to benefit from substantial cost savings.

Embarking on a complete overhaul of outmoded, unsafe product procurement isn’t easy, but Skule, Simpson and others in Facilities Management are optimistic about the benefits. Custodians have already voiced their approval of using safer biobased products, and they won’t have to wait until 2005 to get started. In performance tests during early 2000, Facilities Management gave positive ratings to two biobased product lines they evaluated. Currently, they are reviewing others and plan to select a biobased product line this spring. For more information about the university’s efforts, contact Marshall Skule at 612-626-7560.

A publication of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance