the university of michigan

2007 annual environmental report

table of contentsU-M 2007 Annual Environmental Report

Figures 3

Executive Summary 4

Introduction 6The Move Toward Sustainability 8Environmental Reporting at the University of Michigan 8Report Objectives 9Report Element and Scope 9

Environmental Indicators 10Energy Use 10

Building Energy UseTransportation Energy UseTotal Energy UseAlternate Energy Impact Calculation Methodologies

Air Emissions 16Nitrogen OxidesEmissions Summary—University ProducedEmissions Summary—Externally Supplied and University-Generated Electricity

Water Use 20Land Use 22Solid Waste 24

Cross-Cutting and Emerging Issues 26

Selected Activity at U-M 26Schools and CollegesCenters and Institutes University HousingUniversity Health System

Spotlight on New Environmental Initiatives 30Graham Environmental Sustainability InstituteEnvironmental and Energy Initiative

Awards and Accomplishments 31

Into the Future 32

Appendixes 34

A. Additional Resources 34B. The Environmental Data Repository (EDR) 35C. Raw Data Overview 36

1

AcknowledgementsIn recognition of the efforts of numerous U-M personnel, a special thank you goes out to everyone who assisted with submitting data,defining the report scope, reviewing and refining.

University ContributorsTerrance Alexander Executive Director, Occupational Safety and Environmental HealthTracy Artley Program Manager, Refuse and Recycling, Plant Operations Henry Baier Associate Vice President, Facilities and OperationsAndy Berki Manager, Occupational Safety and Environmental HealthErin Block Marketing Specialist, UMHS Public Relations and Marketing CommunicationsMike Bowen Mechanical Engineer, Associate Supervisor, Utilities and Plant Engineering, Plant OperationsDiane Brown Senior Information Officer, Facilities and OperationsJonathan Bulkley, Ph.D. Peter M. Wege Endowed Professor of Sustainable Systems, SNRE, CSSAndy Cameron Business Systems Analyst, Registrar’s OfficeBrandi Campbell Environmental Health and Safety Specialist Senior, Occupational Safety and Environmental HealthShelly Carpenter Accountant Senior, Purchased Utilities Plant OperationsBruce Cadwallender Director, Safety and Emergency ManagementArthur Chan Research Associate, SNRE, CSSTodd Corbin Superintendent, Radrick Farms Golf CourseSarah Deslauriers Research Associate, SNRE, CSSRobert Doletzky Grounds Senior Supervisor, Plant Buildings and Grounds ServicesKevin Donovan Business Planning Manager, Facilities and OperationsSucila Fernandes Planning Assistant, Project ManagementChad Godfrey Facilities Manager, Plant Building and Grounds Services Susan Gott University Planner, Project ManagementPaula Greeno Assistant Vice President for Medical Affairs and Chief of StaffYoshiko Hill Engineering Manager, Utilities and Plant Engineering, Plant OperationsMichael Hommel Botanical Gardens and Arboretum Superintendent Helaine Hunscher Administrative Specialist, SNRE, CSSJane Immonen Forestry Specialist, Plant Buildings and Grounds ServicesTracey Jones Golf Course Superintendent, AthleticsRenee Jordan Fleet Manager Intermediate, Parking and Transportation ServicesGregory Keoleian, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Sustainable Systems, SNRE, CSSKen Kohrs Adjunct Research Professor, Budget Administration, GESIMegan Lazar Pollution Prevention Specialist, Occupational Safety and Environmental HealthMary Ellen Lyon Business Administrative Manager, Office of Financial AnalysisKevin Marsh Business Manager, UMHS Safety Management ServicesColin McMillan Research Associate, SNRE, CSSDavid Miller Executive Director, Parking and Transportation ServicesJudith Nowack Associate Vice President for ResearchMarvin Pettway Grounds Senior Supervisor, Plant Building and Grounds ServicesTerry Ramsey Senior Planning Assistant, Project ManagementKenn Rapp University Landscape Architect, Plant Landscape ArchitectureRichard Robben Executive Director, Plant OperationsScott Rockov Groundskeeper II, AthleticsLoren Rullman Associate Vice President for Student AffiarsJeffery Schroeder Coordinator, University Housing Management ServicesRebecca Seiser Parking Customer Services Manager, Parking and Transportation ServicesJudith Smith Director, Procurement ServicesDavid Spitzley Research Associate, SNRE, CSSKatie Talik Marketing Communication Specialist, GESIJulia Truettner Lead Planning Assistant, Project ManagementCarol Varney Financial Intermediate Manager, Purchased Utilities, Plant OperationsWilliam Verge Associate Director, Utilities and Plant Engineering, Plant Operations

32 Figures:

Figure 1 FY 2004–FY 2007 Environmental Indicators Trending Data

Figure 2 University of Michigan Growth in Research Expenditures Compared to Research Lab Space

Figure 3 University of Michigan Annual Population and Building Square Footage

Figure 4 U.S. Energy Sources 2006

Figure 5 Worldwide Electricity Use 1980-2005

Figure 6 Energy Breakdown of a Typical U-M Building

Figure 7 Energy Use by Sample Building Type

Figure 8 U-M Fleet Fuel Consumption by Type

Figure 9 Bus Usage

Figure 10 Van Pool Usage

Figure 11 University of Michigan Total Energy Use

Figure 12 University of Michigan Energy Use (Normalized to Population and Building Square Footage)

Figure 13 General Emission Potential by Fuel Source

Figure 14 Central Power Plant Nitrogen Oxide Release

Figure 15 University of Michigan Stationary Source Emissions: U.S. EPA Regulated Air Pollutants

Figure 16 University of Michigan Total Emissions: Carbon Dioxide

Figure 17 Purchased Electricity as a Percentage of Total Energy

Figure 18 U.S. EPA Regulated Air Pollutants: Combined U-M and External Electricity Provider

Figure 19 University of Michigan Total Water Consumption

Figure 20 University of Michigan Water Use: Normalized to Building Square Footage

Figure 21 Hatcher Area Annual Energy Consumption FY 2004-FY 2007

Figure 22 Building Area Efficiency

Figure 23 University of Michigan Waste Disposal

Figure 24 Student Move-Out Donation Totals

Figure 25 Football Stadium Recycling

U-M 2007 Annual Environmental Report

University of Michigan2007 Annual Environmental Report

Prepared by: Andrew BerkiKenneth Keeler

With support from:Center for Sustainable SystemsGraham Environmental

Sustainability InstituteOccupational Safety and

Environmental Health

Design by Kathy Krick, Michigan Marketing & Design 070501

Cover photo:North Campus Wetland Basin

December 2007

Available electronically at:

www.oseh.umich.edu/Stewardship/2007AER.pdf

This report was printed with vegetable-based inks on 100 percent post-consumer recycled paper, produced with renewable energy generated on site, and certified by the Forest Steward-

ship Council (FSC) as an environmentally responsible choice.

Please keep, share, or recycle

Regents of the University

Julia Donovan Darlow, Ann ArborLaurence B. Deitch, Bingham FarmsOlivia P. Maynard, GoodrichRebecca McGowan, Ann Arbor Andrea Fischer Newman, Ann ArborAndrew C. Richner, Grosse Pointe ParkS. Martin Taylor, Grosse Pointe FarmsKatherine E. White, Ann ArborMary Sue Coleman, ex officio

Nondiscrimination PolicyStatement

The University of Michigan, as anequal opportunity affirmative actionemployer, complies with all applicablefederal and state laws regardingnondiscrimination and affirmativeaction, including Title IX of theEducation Amendments of 1972 andSection 504 of the Rehabilitation Actof 1973. The University of Michigan iscommitted to a policy of nondiscrimi-nation and equal opportunity for allpersons regardless of race, sex, color,religion, creed, national origin orancestry, age, marital status, sexualorientation, gender identity, genderexpression, disability, or Vietnam-eraveteran status in employment, educa-tional programs and activities, andadmissions. Inquiries or complaintsmay be addressed to the SeniorDirector for Institutional Equity andTitle IX Section 504 Coordinator,Office of Institutional Equity, 2072Administrative Services Building, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1432,734-763-0235, TTY 734-647-1388.For other University of Michiganinformation call 734-764-1817.

54 The University of Michigan is proudto present our inaugural publication ofthe University of Michigan AnnualEnvironmental Report, building uponprior efforts of the President’s Environ-mental Task Force and the Center for Sustainable Systems. Staff in theDepartment of Occupational Safety andEnvironmental Health, in collaborationwith the Graham Environmental Sus-tainability Institute, developed thisreport to provide the reader with dataassociated with environmental effortsfrom operational, academic and researchendeavors at the University’s Ann Arbor campus.

The mission of the University is toserve the people of Michigan and theworld. To this end, the University takesits responsibility very seriously when itcomes to protecting and preserving theresources and environment in which welive and work. Sustainable environmen-tal actions are just one goal on the roadto being sound stewards of our resources—striking a balance between the positiveimpact of education and research on theworld’s challenges and ensuring that ourimpacts on the environment are mini-mized along the way.

In this report, we have collecteddata relating to 114 environmental indi-cator metrics from across the Ann Arborcampus over a four-year period from

FY 2004 through FY 2007. Over thistime period, the University has seen asustained growth in both populationand infrastructure. The challenge tocontinue to grow to meet our missionof serving the people of Michigan andthe world and improve on the environ-ment around us is huge. However, wecan report that over this period 74 ofthe 114 indicators have trended in anenvironmentally positive direction.These numbers are a good sign that con-servation efforts implemented withinthe University are making a difference.

As you will note in the followingsections, there are several major posi-tive movements happening on campus:

■ Building management on campus isshowing a positive trend in the reduc-tion of total energy use, energy use per

square foot, and energy use per person.A direct benefit of reducing energyconsumption is a correlation withreduced air emissions, such as carbondioxide, created by the burning of fossil fuels.

■ Recycling efforts throughout theUniversity have made great strides overthe past four years. The volume ofglass containers, plastic, metal contain-ers, and construction waste collectedfor recycling all show positive trending,with overall recycling rates for theUniversity achieving more than 28 percent. Composting of yard and foodwaste has also increased during thisperiod.

■ Use of alternative transportationmodes, such as University and AnnArbor Transportation Authority buses,

and van pooling, show steady increaseseach year. The passenger miles in vanpools nearly tripled from 3.1 million in2004 to 8.7 million in 2007. The rider-ship on U-M buses has climbed fromapproximately 5.5 million passenger tripsin 2004 to nearly 8 million in 2007.

As Figure 1 shows, not all trendsare in the positive direction. While it isimportant to continue the work in areasalready moving forward, those with neg-ative trends present new challenges forus, such as water use and transportationenergy consumption. Water use showednegative trending for six environmentalmetrics, indicating a general increase inwater consumption throughout the four-year period. Transportation energy useincreased 3.0 million BTUs, or 3 percent,between 2004 and 2007. This differencecan be attributed in part to the positiveimpact of additional service and increasedUniversity bus ridership, but it doesindicate a need to continue looking foralternative fuel sources for our trans-portation needs. The University alreadyoperates one of the largest alternativefuel fleets in the country—diesel equip-ment burns B20 biodiesel, our gasolineequipment uses E85 ethanol, and wehave a number of hybrid vehicles in the fleet.

As you read through the “Cross-Cutting and Emerging Issues” section,

you will note that the University ofMichigan recognizes the efforts of staff,students and faculty whose creativityand dedication to the environment areequally important—even though theyare not necessarily reflected in the met-rics presented in this report. Betweenresearch, academic and operationalefforts across campus, the examples of good stewardship throughout theUniversity are many. But there is stillmuch that can be done. The six-pointEnvironmental and Energy Initiativethat began in 2007 provides a roadmapfor the University community to followto ensure that the successes of the lastfour years carry on into the future.

The Annual Environmental Reportis committed to being the resourcethrough which the University commu-nity will follow along on this journey.

We invite you to become involvedin the University of Michigan’s commit-ment to the environment and preserva-tion of its natural resources. It is ourhope that by reading this report, theUniversity community will recognizethat the big picture is simply a sum of the small, and that each individualthrough their own actions can help ourchildren and their children’s childrenexperience the same quality of life we enjoy.

FIGURE 1FY 2004-FY 2007 Environmental Indicators Trending Data

Environmental Indicator Trending Positive Trending Negative No Change

Cross-Cutting and Emerging 6 6 3

Air Emissions 22 6 0

Energy 16 3 0

Land Use 8 7 0

Solid Waste 22 8 1

Water 0 6 0

Source: U-M Environmental Data Repository

The Duderstadt Center on Ann Arbor's North Campus

Oil Painting of the Universityof Michigan Campus by

Jasper Cropsey, 1885executive summary U-M 2007 Annual Environmental Report

introduction U-M 2007 Annual Environmental Report

The University of Michigan is rec-ognized internationally as one of theworld’s most prestigious education andresearch institutions. For 190 years, theUniversity of Michigan has been fulfill-ing its mission to:

“Serve the people of Michigan and theworld through preeminence in creating,communicating, preserving, and apply-

ing knowledge, art, and academic values,and in developing leaders and citizens

who will challenge the present andenrich the future.”

The University of Michigan encom-passes multiple properties primarilyspread over three campuses located inAnn Arbor, Dearborn and Flint. Thescope of this report focuses on theUniversity of Michigan’s Ann Arborcampus. The system boundary for theAnn Arbor campus is defined as allUniversity-owned or -operated land and infrastructures that are utilized byUniversity faculty, staff, students or vis-itors. The University of Michigan hasmany units, such as the Health System,Radrick Farms, and the BotanicalGardens, that include facilities bothinside and outside of the Ann Arborcity limits. For purposes of this report,only those properties contained withinthe Ann Arbor area are included..

According to the National ScienceFoundation, the University of Michiganhas been ranked each of the past tenyears as one of the top three researchuniversities in the nation (in terms of expenditures). The University’sresearch expenditures (includingresearch sponsored by external sourcesand by University funds) are presentedin Figure 2.

As the graph indicates, researchspace has increased by 52 percent, andresearch expenditures have increased by58 percent over the last 16 years, withexpenditures reaching $822,967,675 in 2007.

The University of Michigan is apublic university with current enroll-ment of about 40,000 full-time students.

Each year, the Ann Arbor campusgrants more than 10,000 degrees: 5,500bachelors, 3,300 masters, 700 doctoral,and 700 graduate-professional.

In addition to education andresearch activities, the University alsoprovides services for the campus com-munity, as it employs approximately36,000 faculty and staff. UniversityHousing provides residence and foodfor almost 10,000 students in its 15 residence halls and apartments. TheUniversity of Michigan Health Systemincludes the U-M Medical School, threehospitals located on campus, 30 healthcenters, and 120 outpatient clinics serv-ing more than 1.6 million patients peryear. In addition, 25 athletic teams par-ticipate in varsity-level, intercollegiateathletics drawing an additional one-million visitors per year to the campus.

With more than 76,000 students,faculty and staff living and working oncampus, the University of Michiganboasts a population greater than manyUnited States cities. As with any well-run city, the University must addressthe safety and security of its residents,and as a leading academic institution,set an example of 21st century environ-mental awareness and stewardship.

One example of a 21st centurychallenge that all research institutionsface is the balance between growth and resource conservation. Throughcontinued growth, the University ofMichigan provides world-class teachingand research facilities in areas such aslife sciences, biomedical research andpublic policy. These facilities are neces-sary to achieve groundbreaking discov-eries that improve the social well-beingof people throughout the world forgenerations. Cures for life-threatening

diseases and the discovery of new tech-nologies that reduce global environ-mental impacts are the result of workbeing performed on campus. Over theyears, seven U-M alumni have beennamed Nobel Laureates, seven facultymembers have won Pulitzer Prizes, sixfaculty have received the National

Medal of Science awards, and one hasearned a National Medal of Technol-ogy award. In fiscal year 2007, U-Mresearchers disclosed 329 new inven-tions, a 14 percent increase over theprevious year. As a result of U-Mresearch activity, 62 start-up companieswere launched over the past sevenyears with more than 60 percent of

the new businesses located inMichigan.

The University of Michigan is deeply committed to ourresponsibilities as stewards ofour environment and resources.With proper planning and inno-vative leadership, our Univer-sity can ensure a responsibleresearch and educational pro-gram growth that will continueto serve the citizens of the stateof Michigan and beyond.

FIGURE 3University of Michigan Annual Population and Building Square Footage

2004 2005 2006 2007

Campus Population 72,707 73,847 75,130 76,151

Building Area, Includes Parking Structures (Sq Ft) 28,303,787 28,490,282 28,619,505 30,674,494

Sources: Campus Population, Office of Budget and Planning Building Area, Office of Space Analysis

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 200770%60%50%40%30%20%100

----✦--- Res Lab SqFt % inc from 1991 ---■-- Res Exp Pct inc from 1991 (after inflation adjustment)

Sources: Research Space: Facility & Space Data Research Expenditures: Annual letter of total research volume

■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■

■ ■■

■

■

■■ ■ ■ ■

✦ ✦ ✦✦ ✦ ✦

✦ ✦✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦

✦ ✦

✦

FIGURE 2University of Michigan Growth in Research Expenditures

Compared to Research Lab SpaceCumulative Percent Increase from 1991 (Research Expenditures Adjusted to Approximate 1991 Dollars)

6 7

Life Sciences Research Scientist

The Move Toward

Sustainability

In 1987, the United Nations-chartered publication of the WorldCommission on Environment andDevelopment report titled “OurCommon Future” forever linked envi-ronmentalism with the term “sustain-ability.” Later known as the BrundtlandReport, this document defined sustain-able development as:

“development that meets the needs ofthe present without compromising theability of future generations to meet

their own needs”

Since the release of the Brundtlandreport, sustainability awareness hasgrown worldwide. In 1997 the UnitedNations Environmental Programme(UNEP), in cooperation with Ceres,developed the Global ReportingInitiative (GRI), an organization chargedwith the responsibility of developingglobally applicable guidelines for sus-tainability reporting. There currentlyare more than 2,000 sustainabilityreports on file with the GRI.

Sustainability also has become atopic of interest on college campuses.The Association for the Advancementof Sustainability in Higher Education(AASHE) was formed to advance sus-tainability in education in the UnitedStates and Canada. There currently aremore than 300 organizations registeredwith AASHE including universities,

community colleges, businesses, govern-ment organizations, and K-12 institu-tions. The University of Michigan is an AASHE charter member.

Numerous University of Michiganinitiatives have been created to promotesustainability education and researchprograms and to increase awareness ofsustainability and stewardship on cam-pus. Refer to the “Cross-Cutting andEmerging Issues” section and AppendixA for more information on the environ-mental efforts of these programs:

■ The School of Natural Resources and Environment’s Center for Sustainable Systems (CSS)

■ The Frederick A. and Barbara M. Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise

■ The Graham Environmental Sustainability Institute (GESI)

■ The Michigan Memorial Phoenix Energy Institute (MMPEI)

For many years, the operationaldepartments of the University have promoted sound environmental practices

leading to the estab-lishment of theUniversity ofMichigan as anational leader inenvironmental andsustainability issues.Some of these effortsare noted on depart-ment websites of:

■ University Housingwww.housing.umich.edu

■ Occupational Safety and Environ-mental Health (OSEH)www.oseh.umich.edu

■ Plant Operationswww.plantops.umich.edu

■ University of Michigan Health Systemwww.med.umich.edu

Environmental

Reporting at the

University of Michigan

A prototype sustainability reportwas prepared in 2002 by SNRE graduatestudents as a master’s degree project.

In 2003, University President Mary Sue Coleman established theEnvironmental Task Force (ETF), led by Deans Rosina Bierbaum and DouglasKelbaugh, to:

“develop a plan for the U-M to create amore sustainable future.”

The task force released its advisoryreport to the campus community inApril 2004, identifying a set of six generalcategories and eight environmental per-formance indicators (EPIs) and recom-mending an annual report be generatedto track the University’s progress towardthe indicators.

Following this recommendation, theCenter for Sustainable Systems (CSS)developed the Environmental DataRepository (EDR). The EDR is anExcel-based tool designed annually tocollect more than 3,000 data points relat-ing to the performance indicators. Datafrom throughout the University wasrecorded for 2004 and 2005, and areport was issued by CSS in November2006. Responsibility for maintaining theEDR and generating an annual environ-mental report was transferred to theUniversity’s OSEH EnvironmentalStewardship Program for 2007 and

beyond. For additional information con-cerning the EDR, refer to Appendix B.

Reporting Objectives

The purpose of the Annual Envir-onmental Report is to present a yearlyupdate of the University’s environmentalstewardship activities and data relatingto the environmental performance indi-cators general categories of: ■ Energy (building use and

transportation)■ Water use■ Land use■ Air emissions

■ Materials use and solid waste■ Cross-cutting and emerging issues

This 2007 report establishes, forthe first time, a limited capability todevelop sustainability trends using data collected over a four-year span.Campus operations activities, as well asacademic and research programs per-taining to environmental and energyissues, also are highlighted.

The 2007 Annual EnvironmentalReport makes no long-term strategicrecommendations for EPI targets.OSEH staff, with the support of staff

from other operational and academicunits on campus, will analyze the datain the report and determine those areasof environmental performance that canbe improved and actions that warrantfuture efforts.

Report Element and

Scope

The Annual Environmental Reporthas been designed to educate the readerregarding environmental data associatedwith activities of the Ann Arbor cam-pus. Data is presented for the July 1through June 30 fiscal year for the peri-

ods FY 2004, FY 2005, FY 2006 and FY2007. Information outside of this scopemay be referenced in the interest of dis-playing a larger overall picture whendeemed appropriate.

A key element of this report is the consolidation of information fromthroughout the University. While anumber of campus organizations activelyare pursuing environmental initiatives,the efforts have remained largely decen-tralized. By collecting information fromthe Utilities Department, Waste Man-agement Services, Grounds, Parking andTransportation Services, OccupationalSafety and Environmental Health, Univ-ersity Housing, the Health System, andseveral academic departments and cen-ters, the 2007 Annual EnvironmentalReport is designed to include the entireUniversity community.

There are many actions that canimprove the University’s environmentalperformance. These additional actionsmay be difficult to measure, and in somecases they may be more symbolic thansubstantive, but nonetheless they arevery important. They begin with theacknowledgement by students, facultyand administrators that the Universityhas a major impact on the environment,and that small positive actions by indi-viduals will promote forward progressfor the campus as a whole.

Reduction of University ofMichigan’s environmental footprint willbe possible if each person within theUniversity community “takes the firststep”—not waiting for someone else totake the lead. The readers of this reportshould use the data presented to betterunderstand how individuals and activi-ties can make important contributions.The important message within thereport is that the University of Michiganhelps ensure an enriched and sustainablefuture by facing the challenges of thepresent.

U-M’s Solar Car Team Momentum

The Dana Building, home to the School of Natural Resources and Environment, is U-M’sfirst LEED-certified building.

U-M has been at the forefront ofenvironmentalism for many years.In 1927, the School of Forestry wasrenamed the School of Forestry andConservation, the first of its kind inthe country. In the words of theschool’s first dean, Samuel T. Dana,adding the word conservationemphasizes:

“the fact that in addition to the training of professional foresters,

one of the School’s important func-tions is to teach the philosophy of

conservation as the fundamental basisof permanent national prosperity.”

U-M Hospital Complex

SNRE Commitment to Conservation:8 9

Energy production, distributionand use are essential elements of dailylife, especially at a major research uni-versity. Since they also can have nega-tive impacts on the environment, it isnecessary to strike a balance betweenthe adverse impacts and the benefits—in other words, find a way to reduce oroffset the potential damage to the environment.

Energy production around the world has been linked to some of the most visible environmental issues ofmodern times. The burning of fossilfuels to create energy has contributedto an increase in greenhouse gas con-centrations in the atmosphere. Acci-dents involving crude oil transporthave released millions of barrels of rawproduct into our oceans and onto eco-logically sensitive shorelines. Nuclearenergy brings with it the challenges ofsafely storing highly radioactive wasteand the potential for accidents such asChernobyl or Three Mile Island. Even“clean” energy sources provide chal-lenges. Wind turbines and solar photo-voltaic cells only provide intermittentelectricity production. Ethanol produc-tion places a strain on other uses ofcorn products for food production.

At the same time, it is our presentaccess to plentiful and affordable energythat provides a high quality of life. As

the world advances toward global mod-ernization, the demands for all forms ofenergy will continue to increase. Whileutilization of renewable energy sourcescontributes to increasing energy avail-ability and enhancing sustainability, thelargest impact the University can makelocally is through increased energyefficiency and conservation.

The University recognizes energy’simportance in the current global climate.In the 2004 Advisory Report toPresident Mary Sue Coleman, theUniversity of Michigan EnvironmentalTask Force recognized energy as:

“arguably at the rootof the University’smost significant environmental

impacts”

The Task Forcethen reinforced thatopinion by placingenergy at the top ofthe environmentalperformance indica-tors list.

Approximately,45-47 percent of theelectricity consumedon campus is generat-ed onsite at the

Central Power Plant (CPP). The CPPuses a cogeneration process duringwhich natural gas-fueled boilers pro-duce steam that is fed into turbinesthat generate electricity. The steamleaving the turbines is fed into a distri-bution system to buildings throughoutthe central campus for heating andcooling. The process of cogenerationdramatically contrasts to the practice of most thermal-electric power plants,which essentially “throw away” theexhaust steam from the electric tur-bines. By using this exhaust steam, thefuel efficiency of the CPP is approxi-mately 78 percent, compared with fuelefficiency of approximately 40 percent

strategies to achieve energy andenvironmental conservation,and gain the commitment ofbuilding occupants to improvethe operation of their workingenvironment. Through the useof informational campaigns,training sessions, equipmentretrofits and room schedulingrevisions, the teams will imple-ment changes designed toreduce energy consumption,water use and waste produc-tion. The Wolverine Teamsare one facet of the new six-point Environmental andEnergy Initiative introduced to

the campus community in the spring of2007. The Environmental and EnergyInitiative is described in greater detailin the “Cross-Cutting and EmergingIssues” section of this report.

Building

Energy Use

Individual building energy use istracked by the University’s UtilitiesDepartment and is published each yearin an “Annual Report of Utilities.” Theutility report documents energy use ineach building, whether it is provided by the CPP or purchased from a ven-dor, in the form of electricity, steam,

environmental indicators–energy use U-M 2007 Annual Environmental Report

FIGURE 5Worldwide Electricity Use 1980-2005(Global demand for electricity has more than doubled in the past 25 years)

Year 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

■■■ World Total ✦ United States

for most public utility plants. Cogen-eration plants currently are in opera-tion at more than 140 U.S. universities.

A small alternative-energy sourcewas established at U-M as a pilot proj-ect in 2005 via a 33kW photovoltaicarray atop the Dana Building (SNRE).The remaining energy needs of theUniversity, primarily for the north campus operations, are met throughpurchased electricity and natural gasfrom our supplier, DTE Energy.

Energy conservation programshave been a significant aspect of theUniversity’s utility program as early as1995 when U-M became a U.S. EPAGreen Lights partner. In 2007 the

University celebrated its ten-year anniv-ersary as an Energy Star participant. In 2004, U-M was named an Energy Star Partner of the Year. To date, morethan 216 energy-efficiency projects havebeen implemented in our facilities, creat-ing an annual offset of 25 million kWhof electricity, approximately equal to 1.4 percent of the University’s annualenergy consumption.

In 2007, U-M introduced a newapproach to working toward energy effi-ciency in our buildings. The WolverineTeam concept consists of teams of oper-ations personnel, facility managers, andbuilding occupants formed to conductbuilding-by-building energy and environ-mental audits, identify building-specific

FIGURE 4U.S. Energy Sources 2006

Natural Gas 22%

Coal 23%

Petroleum 40%

Nuclear Power 8% Renewable 7%

✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦

Billion k

Wh

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Annual 2005

Source: U.S. Department of Energy Annual Energy Review 2006

10 11

natural gas and fuel oil. The energyuse, regardless of the source, is convert-ed into BTUs and reported on a BTU-per-square-footage basis.

Energy use in University buildingsaccounts for more than 98 percent ofthe University’s total energy consump-tion. With more than 300 major build-ings on campus, the energy required toprovide heating, cooling and electricityexceeded 6.2 trillion BTUs for FY 2007.This was an 8 percent decrease fromFY 2006, despite a growth in buildingsquare footage.

There are many circumstances thatcan affect a building’s energy footprinton an annual basis. Building populationand use change over time, resulting inenergy use variability. Occupant habitsand behavior also can play a large rolein a building’s overall energy consump-tion. By far, the greatest energy con-sumers on campus are the teaching and research laboratories, where ever-changing technology in research drivesequipment acquisition that oftenrequires higher energy loads. A reviewof energy use per square foot (as shownin Figure 7) shows that buildings such as the Life Sciences Institute and the

Chemistry Building, which containnumerous working laboratories, consumemore energy than traditional classroombuildings such as Mason Hall or resi-dence halls such as South Quad. The figure also indicates that non-laboratorybuildings can achieve energy efficiencyprogress over time.

Transportation

Energy Use

Building energy usage accounts forapproximately 98 percent of energy con-sumed on campus. The remaining 2 percent is attributed to the campus trans-portation and vehicle needs. This mayseem small by comparison to those ofUniversity building utilities, but theimpact may be even greater. The UnitedStates currently relies on foreign produc-tion for nearly 60 percent of its crude oil. Minimizing this dependence on for-eign oil is a pressing national concern.Through the use of renewable alternativefuels and new technology, such as gas-electric hybrid vehicles, the University is minimizing its environmental impact.

The U-M fleet, one of the largest inthe nation, is comprised of 1,087 vehi-cles including: 548 cars, 481 trucks andvans, and 58 buses. In FY 2007, the fleetconsumed 835,700 gallons of fuel, orapproximately 100 billion BTUs ofenergy, an increase of 0.3 percent fromthe 833,400 gallons consumed in FY2006. In FY 2007, 77 percent of fuelsconsumed were derived from petrole-um-based products.

To help offset this dependence onpetroleum-based fossil fuels, U-M isvery active in promoting the use ofalternative fuels for its fleet. E-85ethanol fuels 483 vehicles and is avail-able at campus ethanol fueling pumps.B-20 biodiesel fuels 94 vehicles, and fivegasoline-hybrid cars recently have beenadded to the fleet. The use of non-renewable fossil fuels (including thenon-renewable portion mixed with theE85 and B20) still remains a major con-cern at 644,200 gallons in FY 2007.

The U-M Central Power Plant was constructed in 1914. Able to produce 45,000KW of elec-tricity, the CPP provides electricity for 130 U-M buildings and heat and water for 100.

University of Michigan Bus

FIGURE 6Energy Use Sources of a Typical U-M Building

FIGURE 8University of Michigan Fleet Fuel Consumption by Type

Exhaust Fans 14%

Heating 47%

Hot Water 2%

Computers and ResearchEquipment 12%

Cooling 12%

Lighting 13%

Year 2004 2005 2006 2007

900,000

800,000

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

0

Unleaded Biodiesel 85% Ethanol

■ Chemistry ● Life Sciences ▲ Mason Hall ✦ South Quad

Buildings associated with researchand teaching laboratories consumeenergy at a rate greater than tradi-tional structures.

■

■ ■

■

●●

●

●

▲

▲▲ ▲

✦ ✦ ✦ ✦

2004 2005 2006 2007

450,000

400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

0

The University of Michigan aggres-sively encourages the use of alternatemodes of transportation for staff and students. The number of passengersusing campus buses has increased everyyear since 1999 (See Figure 9). The M-Ride program, established in 2004,allows the University population toride the Ann Arbor TransportationAuthority (AATA) buses free of charge,which has helped boost AATA rider-ship. All AATA buses are equipped totransport passenger bicycles, making itmore convenient to access campus anduse one of the 3,412 bike racks locatedthroughout campus.

Another environmentally friendlytransportation option is van pooling.The University currently sponsors 79van pools being used by 476 employeescommuting from areas as far away asJackson, Brighton, and Toledo (See Figure 10).

Parking and TransportationServices staff are participants in theplanning of the Livingston and Wash-tenaw counties North-South Rail Initia-tive, an effort to establish commuterrail service between Howell and Ann

FIGURE 7Energy Usage by Sample Building Type

_________

___

Gallons

Source: Center for Sustainable Systems, Energy Consumption and Conservation Fact Sheet

Source: Parking and Transportation ServicesSource: Utilities and Plant Engineering Annual Reports

BT

U/F

t2

12 13

Arbor. A specific implementation datehas not been decided as fundraisingefforts continue. The University, con-sistent with supporting a variety ofalternative transportation options suchas free rides on AATA buses and subsi-dized Michivan van pools, has commit-ted to paying fares for employees whoride the train. The commitment is for100 percent fare subsidy in the firstyear of operation, 75 percent subsidy inthe second year, and 50 percent subsidyin the third year. A survey of morethan 1,000 University employees wholive along the US-23 corridor expressedan interest in riding the train at leastthree days per week.

It is very difficult to directly meas-ure the energy savings contribution ofincreased bus usage and van pooling.However benefits of reduced vehicletraffic and congestion on roadways andin parking areas, as well as reduced pollution, can be recognized.

Total Energy Use

By combining building and utilitiesenergy needs with the transportation-related fuel consumption, total Univer-sity of Michigan energy use can be calculated. A simple trend analysis inFigure 11 reveals the University energyconsumption has fluctuated over time.There was a 3.8 percent decreasebetween FY 2004 and 2005, a 7.6 per-cent increase between FY 2005 and2006, and a 7.7 percent decreasebetween FY 2006 and 2007.

However, when the data is normal-ized in Figure 12 with respect to popu-lation and square footage, although totalenergy use (BTU per square foot perperson) increased from 2005 to 2006,the four-year trend is downward overthe last four years by about 16 percentor an average of a 4 percent annualimprovement.

Alternative Energy

Impact Calculation

Methodologies

The campus energy footprint can beconsidered much larger than just AnnArbor campus buildings and transporta-tion usage when full life-cycle costs asso-ciated with producing and transportingthe energy source are considered. How-ever, we recognize that it is at the locallevel, building by building, that we canmake a direct impact on our own con-sumption and ultimately on the largerfootprint. A reduction in consumption

at the building level should result in acorresponding larger reduction in theoverall energy footprint because ulti-mately if we consume less, the upfrontproduction impacts are reduced by theneed for less production.

This environmental report tracksthe building-by-building consumptiondata, but not the up-front productionand transportation impacts, nor theenergy used to manage by-products of energy use.

However, other U-M efforts examineupstream and downstream data and

FIGURE 9Bus UsagePassenger Trips

2004 2005 2006 2007

7,000,0006,000,0005,000,0004,000,0003,000,0002,000,0001.000,000

0

■ U-M Riders on AATA ▲ University

FIGURE 10Van Pool Usage

2004 2005 2006 2007

500450400350300250200150100500

■■■ Number of Passengers ✦ Passenger Miles

10,000,0009,000,0008,000,0007,000,0006,000,0005,000,0004,000,0003,000,0002,000,0001,000,0000

FIGURE 11University of Michigan Total Energy Use

In Billions BTUs

2004 2005 2006 2007

7,000

5,000

0

6,620 6,370 6,860 6,330

FIGURE 12University of Michigan Energy UseNormalized to Population and Building Square Footage

2004 2005 2006 2007

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

BTU/ft2/person 3.22 3.03 3.19 2.71

East Hall

U-M Van Poolers

■■ ■ ■

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

✦

✦

✦✦

analyze full energy impact. In particular,the Center for Sustainable Systems(CSS) has taken a broad approach in anattempt to define the University’s glob-al environmental footprint. By incorpo-rating data associated with upstreamenergy production, such as energypotential of various fuel sources usedto produce electricity purchased by theUniversity, CSS uses the EnvironmentalData Repository (EDR) in order toreport life-cycle analysis of theUniversity’s energy profile.

Source: Parking and Transportation Services

Source: Parking and Transportation Services

Source: Utilities and Plant Engineering, Annual Utilities Purchases

Source: Utilities and Plant Engineering, Annual Utilities Purchases

14 15

tants than power plants that utilize fueloil or coal. In particular, natural gasemission of nitrogen oxides (NOx) is sig-nificantly lower than from oil and coal.Figure 13 also indicates the benefits ofnatural gas over oil and coal withrespect to carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate emissions.

In 2003, the EPA began to adminis-ter the NOx Budget Trading Program, amarket-based cap and trade program cre-ated to reduce emissions of NOx. NOxis a key component in the formation ofground-level ozone, otherwise known assmog. The NOx Budget Trading Prog-ram is designed to reduce NOx emis-sions during the summer ozone seasonwhen ground-level ozone concentrationsare at their highest. Through the

Budget Trading Program, the CPP isallocated 136 tons of NOx emissionsper ozone season. As shown in Figure14, U-M’s total production has been less than the allocated 136 tons each of the four years the program has been in effect.

When actual NOx emissions areless than 136 tons, the difference isawarded as a credit. Credits can be

In 1970, the U.S. Congress passedthe Clean Air Act (CAA) which recog-nized the need to regulate six commonpollutants: particulate matter (PM10),volatile organic compounds (VOCs),carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitro-gen oxides and lead. In a 1990 amend-ment to the Act, commonly known asTitle V, a new requirement was addedthat all major air emission sourcesobtain a “renewable operating permit.”In order to obtain a permit, the emittermust document their emissions andmaintain compliance within the emis-sion thresholds as governed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The University of Michigan is con-sidered a major emissions source due tothe boilers and turbines associated withthe Central Power Plant (CPP). Forthis section of the report, stationarysources are defined as emissions fromthe CPP as well as additional emissionsources such as kilns and laboratoryfume hoods associated with teaching,research and operational functions ofthe University.

In 1997, the EPA set limits for fine particulate matter (PM 2.5), and onApril 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Courtidentified carbon dioxide as an air pol-lutant, giving the EPA the authority to regulate this greenhouse gas.

This section of the Annual Envir-onmental Report will review emissionsas generated by campus stationarysources defined above, the transporta-tion fleet, and University electricityproviders. Emissions are based uponcalculations derived from fuel consump-tion, not actual measurements—a prac-tice consistent with CAA reportingrequirements. With respect to thetransportation information, only carbondioxide emissions are being tracked at this time, again calculated on fuelenergy used.

Nitrogen Oxides

By using natural gas as its primaryfuel, the CPP produces fewer air pollu-

environmental indicators–air emissions U-M 2007 Annual Environmental Report

Aerial View of U-M Central Power Plant

FIGURE 13General Emission Potential by Fuel SourcePounds of Air Pollutants Produced per Billion BTU of Energy

FUELS Natural Gas Oil Coal

Carbon Dioxide 117,000 164,000 208,000

Carbon Monoxide 40 33 208

Nitrogen Oxides 92 448 457

Sulfur Dioxide 0.6 1,122 2,591

Particulates 7.0 84 2,744

Formaldehyde 0.750 0.220 0.221

Mercury 0.000 0.007 0.016

By reducing air pollution, the

Clean Air Act has led to signifi-

cant improvements in human

health and the environment in

the United States.

Since 1970:

■ the six commonly found air

pollutants have decreased by

more than 50 percent;

■ air pollutants from large

industrial sources, such as

chemical plants, petroleum

refineries, and paper mills,

have been reduced by nearly

70 percent;

■ new cars are more than 90

percent cleaner and will be

even cleaner in the future, and

■ production of most ozone-

depleting chemicals has

ceased.

At the same time:

■ the U.S. gross domestic

product has tripled,

■ energy consumption has

increased by 50 percent, and

■ vehicle use has increased by

almost 200 percent.

Did you know?

PO

LLU

TA

NT

FIGURE 14Central Power Plant Nitrogen Oxide Release

Ozone Season (May 1-Sept. 30) 2004 2005 2006 2007

NOx Production (tons) 71 94 66 61

saved, retired or sold. Saved creditsensure coverage in the event that NOxemissions exceed allocated amounts infuture ozone seasons. Retiring creditstakes them off the market, ensuringthat the particular NOx is not intro-duced into the environment. Creditsalso can be sold to organizations thathave exceeded their annual allotment orto various environmental groups whoensure that the credits will be retired.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration

Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency

Source: Utilities and Plant Engineering

16 17

U-M staff carefully consider the dis-position of each NOx credit. Since 2004,nearly $300,000 worth of NOx creditshave been sold. In turn, these fundshave been used to purchase CPP equip-ment upgrades with the express intentof improving energy and environmentalefficiency.

Emissions Summary–University Produced

Stationary source emissions, as pre-viously defined, comprise the majority of the University’s output. Figure 15shows a downward trend for EPA regu-lated stationary source air pollutantsbetween FY 2004 and FY 2007 —including a 10 percent decrease betweenFY 2006 and FY 2007.

The measurement of total carbondioxide emissions is a combination ofemissions produced by the University’stransportation fleet with the stationary

sources. Figure 16 shows total carbondioxide emissions while comparing sta-tionary source generation to transporta-tion. As would be expected from theearlier discussion regarding campusbuildings as the primary user of energy

by the University, the carbon dioxideemissions from the stationary sources faroutweigh those of the mobile sources.

Emissions Summary–

Externally Supplied

and University-

Generated Electricity

As was discussed in the energy sec-tion, it is important to look at morethan just what is produced at the locallevel. The University of Michiganpurchased 437,583MWh of electricityfrom Detroit Edison (DTE) in FY 2007.DTE makes information available con-cerning fuel sources and emissionpotential for carbon dioxide, nitrogenoxides and sulfur dioxide. Emissionsrelated to University purchases arecalculated from that information.

For reasons such as Central PowerPlant capacity and energy cost issues,the percentage of energy the University

of Michigan purchases from DTE variesfrom year to year (Figure 17)—theemissions produced by the CPP reflectsthis. Combining emissions producedon campus with emissions associatedwith electricity purchases presents abroader view of the University’s entireemissions profile as shown in Figure 18.

Emissions increased between FY 2004 and FY2006 with a reductionbetween FY 2006 and FY 2007. Thecombined data shows a reduction of0.16 percent for the EPA-regulatedpollutants sulfur dioxide and nitrogenoxides, and a 3.6 percent reduction incarbon dioxide as compared with a 10percent decrease for University emis-sions. The reason for this difference isthat while DTE produces electricityprimarily through the use of coal, theCentral Power Plant utilizes natural gasfor the majority of its fuel.

As noted earlier, the majority ofthe emissions released by U-M facilitiesare directly related to the burning offossil fuels to create energy for Univer-sity buildings. U-M energy reductioninitiatives, such as those described inthe “Cross-Cutting and EmergingIssues” section of this report, shouldhave a direct and positive impact onemission levels.

Emissions also can be reducedthrough the use of alternative energysuch as solar and wind. U-M’s Collegeof Engineering’s Department of Atmo-spheric, Oceanic, and Space Sciencescurrently is partnering with Washten-aw County and the City of Ann Arboras part of the Wind Power Washtenawproject—a study to examine the feasibil-ity of using wind-generated energy topower the residences and businesses ofWashtenaw County. Facilities &Operations staff will monitor this studyand determine how it could impactpower generation at the U-M.

FIGURE 17Purchased Electricity as a Percentage of Total Energy

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007

17.6% 18.2% 21.6% 23.6%

FIGURE 15University of Michigan Stationary Source Emissions:U.S. EPA Regulated Air Pollutants

FIGURE 16U-M Total Emissions Carbon Dioxide

FIGURE 18Total EmissionsCombined U-M and External Electricity Provider

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

0

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007

350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

0

Mobile Sources

Stationary Sources

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007

7,000,000

6,000,000

5,000,000

4,000,000

3,000,000

2,000,000

1,000,000

0

Pb

SO2

PM25

PM10

VOC

CO

NOX

School of Public Health

Source: OSEH

Source: OSEH

Pounds R

ele

ased

Source: OSEH

Metr

ic T

ons

Source: U-M Environmental Data Repository

18 19

Metr

ic T

ons

Water use occurs throughout ouroperations including classrooms, labora-tories, administrative office space, serv-ice facilities and residence halls. Inaddition, water is used to irrigate ath-letic fields and golf courses. During the past two years, major buildingswere brought online, including the newBiomedical Science Research Buildingand the Undergraduate Science Build-ing, adding a significant amount ofsquare footage to the campus facilities.During the same time period, the cam-pus grew in both student populationand research activity.

In 2007, the University of Michiganoperations used more than 1.3 billiongallons of water—a 1 percent increasefrom 2006 and a 3 percent increasefrom 2005. When normalized withrespect to building total square foot-age in Figure 20, water use actuallydecreased from 47 gallons per squarefoot in FY 2006 to 45 gallons persquare foot in FY 2007, indicating someprogress toward reducing water useduring daily operations. Normalizingto campus population indicates wateruse remained a constant 17,900 gallonsper person in FY 2005, FY 2006, andFY 2007.

The majority of the University’swater needs (98 percent) are suppliedby the Huron River via the City of

Ann Arbor water treatment facility.The University water purchasesaccount for nearly 25 percent of theCity’s six-billion-gallons-per-year production.

Approximately 80 percent of thewater used on campus is disposedthrough the city’s sanitary waste sys-tem. The remaining 20 percent islost to the atmosphere through evap-oration from cooling towers or usedin irrigation that recharges thegroundwater system. The AnnArbor Waste Water Treatment Planthandles nearly seven-billion gallons ofsewage each year. In 2007, the Univer-sity contribution to the city systemwas approximately 1.1 billion gallons, or about 15 percent of the treatmentthroughput.

Over the last several years, theCity of Ann Arbor operations staff hasbeen conducting studies to identifycapacity concerns in the waste watertreatment facility as well as systemcapacity during major storm events. A new program, disconnecting footerdrains, has been implemented to reducestorm flow into the sanitary system,which in turn should eliminate base-ment flooding in various zones of thecity. The program has required off-setdisconnection of storm water flowsfrom the system for all new develop-

The Hatcher Chiller Plant provides acentral location from which the chill-ing needs of multiple buildings can beprovided. It is estimated that thisplant is responsible for a 2.6 milliongallons-per-year reduction in wateruse, as well as a 650,000 gallons-per-year reduction in sanitary discharge.Energy, as well as water, savings havebeen achieved through the plant’sability to employ bothabsorption chillers and elec-tric-powered centrifugalchillers. Maintenance is more

efficient with multiple unitslocated in one spot, reducingtravel time for the mechanics.Reliability increases becausechilling requirements still canbe met by other units if oneunit fails. Finally, by relocatingchillers away from individualbuildings, acoustical impacts are reduced and campus aesthetics are improved.

The University recognizesthat water resources are finite,and efforts must be implement-ed to conserve as well as toensure safety. Over the years,campus conservation programshave reduced water consump-tion through innovation, suchas the central chiller plants, andelimination of once-through

cooling water in research laboratories.Additionally, a campus storm-watermanagement plan helps ensure that thewater flowing across our property iscontrolled and uncontaminated as itreaches the Huron River. An aggres-sive water conservation program isbeing implemented by Plant Operationsstaff to reduce or eliminate water wastein facilities.

FIGURE 20University of Michigan Water Use (Normalized to Building Square Footage)

Fiscal Year 2004 2005 2006 2007

40

20

0

43 46 47 45

FIGURE 19University of Michigan Total Water Use

Fiscal Year 2004 2005 2006 2007

1,500

1,000

500

0

1,231 1,321 1,347 1,365FIGURE 21Hatcher Area Annual EnergyConsumption FY 2004-FY 2007(Includes Hatcher South, Hatcher North,Tappan, Clements)

Year 2004 2005 2006 2007

140,000

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

0

Million BTU/Year

Hatcher Chiller Plant Completion, May 2006.Estimated Total Energy Savings, 4 Buildings:51 Billion BTU/Year

ment in the city. The University hasbeen participating in this program—accounting for nearly 500,000 gallons-per-day flow removal from the systemthrough FY 2007.

Treatment of sanitary discharge at the Waste Water Treatment Plant is facilitated through the activity ofmicrobial organisms. In order toensure that this biological mechanismremains healthy, introduction of harm-ful chemicals into the system must bekept to a minimum. The city sets astrict limit on what chemicals can bedischarged through the sanitary system.In the fall of 1995, the Universityentered into a voluntary program withthe city designed to sample and analyzesanitary discharges from 60 buildingswhere chemicals are used in research,teaching, health care or maintenance

operations. Following a comprehensiveuser survey, samples were collectedboth upstream and downstream ofselected buildings to ensure that dis-charges were in compliance with citylimits. As discharge concerns in specif-ic buildings were discovered, a programwas implemented within the notedbuilding to remove or replace the prob-lem materials and help clean up the dis-charge waters.

As with many environmentalefforts, water conservation results inpositive savings throughout the envi-ronmental system. One key example isthe recent activation of the HatcherChiller Plant. The traditional, industry-standard approach to meeting buildingcooling requirements was the installa-tion of a steam- or electric-poweredabsorption chiller at every building.

Source: OSEH Source: OSEH

Average Energy Consumption, pre-chillerplant: 104 Billion BTU/Year

FY07 Energy Consumption,post-chiller plant: 53 Billion

BTU/Year

Sources: Utilities and Plant Engineering

Millions o

fG

allons

environmental indicators–water use U-M 2007 Annual Environmental Report

Gallons/ft2

20 21

2322 When the University of Michiganmoved from Detroit to Ann Arbor in1837, the original campus occupied 40acres of land donated by the AnnArbor Land Company. Now, 170 yearslater, the Ann Arbor campus covers3,070 acres. An additional 18,000 acresof mostly natural area can be found inadditional holdings including extensivefield research facilities at the Edwin S.George Reserve in Pinckney, the Biolog-ical Station in Pellston, and the CampDavis Field Station in Jackson Hole,Wyoming.

Green space provides aestheticbeauty, wildlife habitat and an excellentcarbon dioxide (CO2) sink. The forest-ed area of the U-M Biological Stationalone is capable of absorbing 65,000tons of CO2 per year. The Ann Arborarea now has more than 14,000 treesinventoried.

Approximately 2,500 campus acres (81 percent) are considered to bepervious surface, allowing storm waterto pass into the ground. Impervioussurfaces such as buildings, parking lots and roadways redirect storm water into local water sources such as theHuron River.

Green space is able to absorb rainwater, acting as a natural filter forwater flowing over the surface and

recharging groundwater sources. TheUniversity of Michigan shares theresponsibility to reduce pollutants dis-charging into the storm water drainagesystem with all members of the AnnArbor community. The University iscommitted to reducing these pollutantsand actively promotes stewardship ofsurrounding waterways through imple-mentation of our Storm WaterManagement Program. This programincludes public education and involve-ment opportunities, location andremoval of non-storm water discharges,and a review of campus activities tocreate and implement Best ManagementPractices (BMPs) that reduce potentialdischarges to the storm water system.

As Figure 22 indicates, total build-ing area in square feet has increased 8percent since 2004, and usage efficiencyhas decreased by 3 percent as a resultof the addition of more modern build-ings with large public areas and dedicat-ed laboratory space. While modernarchitecture and more open space canbe desirable for an enhanced quality oflife for building residents, and new labspace is a necessity for our researchgrowth, the University will need tocontinue to examine new uses of avail-able space or time-sequenced, shareduses in the future if we are to meet oursustainability expectations.

The following highlight the Univ-ersity’s efforts to increase infiltrationand groundwater recharge, to reducepollutants, and/or to reduce stormwater volumes discharged from thecampus:

■ The 1,000,000-gallon detentionbasin under the parking structure inthe Life Sciences Institute Palmer Drivecomplex manages runoff from morethan 60 acres of central campus.

■ The north campus wetland basinstorm water detention system near theArt & Architecture Building promotesevaporation and infiltration, managesstorm water runoff from more than 90acres of north campus, and provides anew aesthetic natural feature for thecampus community.

■ In-ground detention and/or infiltra-tion-engineered structures, such as theRainstore 3 system installed under theparking lot at Elbel Field and the in-ground engineered system at WeillHall, reduce the volume of water dis-charged during storm events.

■ Vegetated swales along the SouthCampus Commuter Lot slow waterflow, filter the runoff with vegetation,and allow increased infiltration ofstorm water.

■ Bioretention islands at the VarsityTennis Center lot use vegetation toinfiltrate and filter storm water.

■ Porous pavement at lot W-16 oncentral campus, across from WestQuad, allows infiltration of storm waterand increases groundwater recharge.

■ By installing a crushed stone drive,Matthaei Botanical Gardens was able toavoid the use of asphalt and otherimpervious paving materials.

■ The recent expansion of the EastMedical campus incorporated mitigatedwetlands, underground storm watersystems, bioswales, and native grassplantings.

environmental indicators—land use U-M 2007 Annual Environmental Report

North Campus Wetland Basin helps protect the environment by collecting and filteringstorm water runoff before it reaches surface waters.

FIGURE 22Building Area Efficiency As Measured in Building Area vs. Campus Population

2004 2005 2006 2007

Campus Population 72,707 73,847 75,130 76,151

Building Area, Includes

Parking Structures (Sq. Ft.) 28,303,787 28,490,282 28,619,505 30,674,494

Total Building Area/Person 389 386 381 403

Sources: Campus Population, Office of Budget and Planning Building Area, Office of Space Analysis

2524 There are three primary depart-ments within the University that areresponsible for managing waste that isgenerated on campus. They are WasteManagement Services (WMS) withinPlant Operations, the Utilities andWaste Management division of the U-M Health System Facilities Services(UMHS), and the Hazardous MaterialsManagement program in the Depart-ment of Occupational Safety andEnvironmental Health (OSEH).

In general, WMS manages the collection and recycling of all non-hazardous waste, UMHS manages thecollection and recycling of all hospitalwastes, and OSEH is responsible formanaging hazardous and regulated wasteand regulated material recycling. Duringtypical nonregulated waste collectionactivities, WMS trucks pick up waste,paper, and mixed containers from thevarious dumpsters on campus. Thesetrucks transport the materials to theAnn Arbor Materials Recovery Facility(MRF), where they are weighed beforethe garbage and recyclables are processedwith the MRF’s other incoming materi-als. Materials that are not recovered forrecycling are sent to the landfill.

Prior to 1999, the UniversityHospital burned all regulated solid wastein an incinerator on site. In 1999, thisincinerator was shut down and replaced

with a steam sterilization system. Thechange in management of waste disposalfrom incineration to steam-sterilizationtechnology had positive environmentalconsequences by eliminating emissionsassociated with waste combustion. How-ever, a trade-off resulted as total wastevolume for the Health System hasincreased. The material now is sterilized,shredded and disposed as solid waste.

Due to the wide-ranging operationsoccurring throughout campus, the typesof materials collected for disposal orrecycling are diverse. Office spaces gen-erate paper waste and used food contain-ers as well as larger items, such as agedoffice furniture. Laboratories and healthcenters require frequent replacement ofconsumables, resulting in large volumesof packaging waste. Construction andrenovation projects produce scrap lum-ber, metal and concrete. Electronicdevices such as personal computers, mon-itors, and testing equipment must bereplaced regularly in order to keep pacewith the latest technologicaladvances. Allnon-regulatedrecyclable mate-rials are sent tothe MRF forprocessing.Regulated mate-rials such as

computer monitors, fluorescent lightbulbs, and batteries are sent to compa-nies who specialize in recycling thesematerials.

The solid waste indicator measuresthe total amount of regulated nonhaz-ardous and nonregulated waste generat-ed from the Ann Arbor campus and the University hospitals. The indicatorincludes all generated waste, whether itis recycled, reused, or sent to a landfill.

A total of 15,959 tons of solid wastewas collected from the University ofMichigan in FY 2007. That is a decreaseof 1,190 tons from 2006, as shown inFigure 23. The waste collected in 2007was equivalent to approximately 420pounds per person, or less than 1.2pounds/person/day, as compared withabout 460 pounds per person in 2006, orabout 9 percent more. This is an exam-ple that while recycling programs are crit-ical to environmental sustainability, theroot cause solution is to reduce theamount of total waste generated.

The University participates in anumber of programs designed to divertas much solid waste as possible fromlocal landfills. Through the UniversityProperty Disposition office, 8.4 tons ofpotential waste was diverted from land-fills and returned to general use withinthe community. A total of 261 tons ofwaste was removed through composting,and 3,500 tons of paper was recycled.

Educating employees about recy-cling procedures in office areas begins atnew-employee orientation. Informationis made available about the types ofmaterials collected and locations of collection bins. Materials collected forrecycling comprise 14 different itemsincluding various types of paper andboxboard, glass, plastic, steel, and alu-

minum containers. The University cur-rently is recycling more than 4,500tons, or 28 percent of its total wastestream. This number has remainedsteady for the past four years.

Several annual recycling events aredesigned to not only reduce waste, butto involve the campus community.The Student Move-Out program asshown in Figure 24, which began in1991, has collected 138 tons of dona-tions. Items such as clothing, food, bed-ding, toiletries, kitchen appliances, andpersonal electronics have been divertedfrom the landfill put to use by charita-ble organizations such as Purple Heart,Food Gatherers, St. Vincent DePaul,and the Salvation Army. To comple-

ment the Student Move-Out program, aStudent Move-In program aimed at col-lecting cardboard also was begun in1991. This program was expanded in2000 to include packing foam.

In 1994, Grounds and WasteManagement introduced a FootballStadium Recycling Program. On six or seven fall Saturdays, more than105,000 fans visit Michigan Stadium—the largest college-owned sports venuein the country. The Football StadiumRecycling Program, shown in Figure 25,also is the largest program of its kindin the country. More than 100 tons ofpaper and cardboard, along with 100tons of plastic containers, have beencollected throughout the stadium.

environmental indicators–solid waste U-M 2007 Annual Environmental Report

FIGURE 23University of Michigan Waste Disposal

Fiscal Year 2004 2005 2006 2007

Total Solid Waste (tons) 14,342 16,143 17,149 15,959

Composited Material (tons) 238 219 257 261

Recycled Materials (tons) 4,191 4,487 4,771 4,522

Source: Plant Operations Waste Management Services

FIGURE 24

Student Move-Out Donation Totals(In Tons)

Year 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

FIGURE 25

Football Stadium Recycling(In Tons)

Year 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06

25

20

15

10

5

5

0

Cardboard Containers

Source: Plant Operations Waste Management Services Source: Plant Operations Waste Management Services

2726 This environmental reportattempts to quantify various measuresof how well the University of Mich-igan is doing in controlling its directimpacts to the environment. There are,however, various ongoing campus activ-ities that cannot be quantitatively meas-ured, but nonetheless have a very posi-tive impact on the world—eitherdirectly or indirectly through researchand education. Each year the Univer-sity is host to approximately 40,000students eager to learn and move intothe world as our future leaders. If wecan reach out and touch even a smallpercentage of this group, we can haveprofound impact on the future.

“Cross-Cutting and EmergingIssues” discusses where and how actionscan have a direct impact on the envi-ronment. In this section, we captureideas and measures of environmentalawareness and progress that cross thetraditional Environmental PerformanceIndicator (EPI) categories. Takentogether with the prior quantitativeperformance measurements, this sectioncompletes a total operational and aca-demic perspective on the Universityinvolvement in the environment.

As an institution of higher learning,the University of Michigan is able toshape future environmental thinkingand provide solutions to worldwideconcerns through education andresearch. During the 2006-07 schoolyear, more than 8,000 students attendedone or more of the 393 environmental-related courses offered by U-M’s variousschools and colleges. Non-class campusactivities provide additional learningforums and discussion opportunities.For example, the annual Energy Fest,which began 12 years ago and is heldeach year in September, features dis-plays from U-M departments andorganizations, local government, andprivate businesses. Many of these samegroups also participate in the annualCity of Ann Arbor Green Fair. TheCenter for Sustainable Systems’ (CSS)

annual Peter M. Wege Lecture onSustainability focuses on critical issuesof sustainability and honors Mr. Wegefor his many outstanding contributionsto the CSS and environmental studies.

Selected Activity

at U-M

Throughout 2006, several U-Mschools and colleges played an activerole addressing environmental sustain-ability challenges through a wide rangeof research and academic programs.With an ever-increasing importance of finding solutions to environmentalissues and preparing for a sustainablefuture, many of these schools have envi-ronmental-themed studies integratedinto their core curriculum. Addition-ally, environmental degree programs atboth the graduate and undergraduatelevels offer courses covering more spe-cialized topics in greater depth. Thesecourses also can be taken as electives toenrich the students’ academic experi-ences. Selected courses incorporatecontent that extends beyond traditionaldepartmental boundaries. Followingare brief descriptions of each school’ssustainability topics.

Schools and Colleges

■ A. Alfred Taubman College ofArchitecture and Urban Planning:Designs and studies of sustainable architecture and urban planning thatenhances a sustainable future

■ College of Engineering:Significant focus on energy, fresh water,new materials, sustainable infrastructuresand manufacturing, and climate change

■ College of Literature,Science, and the Arts: Broad rangeof studies including bio-diversity, geolog-ical history of change, impacts of chem-istry on energy and pollution, and thestudy of human interaction with theenvironment

■ Gerald R. Ford School ofPublic Policy: Examination of the roleof government and policy relative toachieving environmental sustainability

■ School of Natural Resourcesand Environment: Broad spectrum ofenvironmental studies ranging from thepsychology of environmental protection,environmental justice, landscape architec-ture, and studies of freshwater and landmanagement

■ School of Public Health:Studies that include the impact of the

environment on human health, infectiousdisease transmission and prevention

■ Stephen M. Ross School ofBusiness: Major initiatives include the Erb Institute for Global SustainableEnterprise, which works to understandand communicate the complex, intercon-nected dynamics of human and naturalsystems in relation to economic produc-tion and consumption.

■ Law School: Established anEnvironmental Law and Policy Program(ELPP) in July 2007. The new programwill enhance the Law School’s environ-mental and natural resources law cur-riculum, and provide clinical opportuni-

ties and externships for students seekingpractical experience. It will bring nation-ally and internationally renowned schol-ars, advocates, and practitioners to theUniversity as part of the ELPP lectureseries. Workshops and an annual confer-ence on environmental law and policywill expand the outreach activity. Sincemany environmental sustainability issuesinvolve regulation, policy, and legal dis-putes, this will be a valuable addition toenvironmental learning and interdiscipli-nary opportunities.

Centers and Institutes

■ Center for the Study of

Complex Systems (CSCS): Focusesits research and educational efforts in thegeneral areas of nonlinear, dynamic andadaptive systems. The Center presentsmany measurable goals including catalyz-ing and encouraging research in complexadaptive systems at the University,expanding and coordinating educationalopportunities, and exploring the bound-aries and overlaps between the complexsystems approach and more traditionalapproaches within the business communi-ties. To achieve these goals, CSCS hostsa weekly seminar series and annual work-shops and administers a ComplexSystems Graduate Certificate Program.

cross-cutting and emerging issues U-M 2007 Annual Environmental Report

Energy Fest 2006 Flyer

The Law School

2928

■ The Center for Sustainable

Systems (CSS), part of the School of Natural Resources and Environment,advances concepts of sustainabilitythrough interdisciplinary research andeducation. CSS collaborates withdiverse stakeholders to develop andapply lifecycle-based models and sus-tainable metrics for systems that meetsocietal needs. CSS developed themodels used to gather and analyze datafor this Environmental Report. CSSoffers the University communityenhanced coursework and curriculumdevelopment, a graduate certificateprogram in industrial ecology, researchopportunities, internships, and speciallectures and workshops.

■ The Frederick A. and BarbaraM. Erb Institute for GlobalSustainable Enterprise fostersglobal, sustainable enterprise throughinterdisciplinary research and educationinitiatives. The most notable Erb ini-tiative is a joint MBA/MS program thatoffers students degrees from both theStephen M. Ross School of Business andthe School of Natural Resources andthe Environment. This program is the largest and most integrated of itskind in the world. These dual-degreestudents are regularly engaged in a chal-

lenging blend of coursework, projects,and research related to business, theenvironment, and sustainability. OtherErb initiatives include executive educa-tion programs, public conferences,research workshops, and an ongoingpublic speaker series.

■ The Graham EnvironmentalSustainability Institute (GESI) is dedicated to innovatively supportingand encouraging the multidisciplinaryresearch studies and education involv-ing complex environmental sustain-ability issues, integrating a balancedapproach to achieve economic growthwhile meeting social responsibilities.These issues are addressed by research-ers and students from U-M’s schoolsand colleges with a marked interest in sustainability. GESI initiativesinclude a graduate fellowship program,undergraduate fieldwork scholarships,undergraduate and graduate coursedevelopment, and research funding forcross-disciplinary, cross-campusresearchers.

■ The Michigan MemorialPhoenix Energy Institute(MMPEI) is a recent addition to theUniversity sustainability effort. TheMMPEI plans to chart the path to a secure, affordable, and sustainable

energy future by applying Universityacademic strengths to public policy,economics, business, and social sciencesto lay the foundation for meetingfuture energy needs. The bulk of theresearch supported by MMEPI willfocus on energy policy, economics, andsocietal impacts; carbon neutral electric-ity sources; energy storage and utiliza-tion; and transportation and fuels. In itsshort time on campus, the new Institutehas hosted symposiums and seminars,and named graduate research fellows.

Numerous other U-M centers,institutes, research programs, and initia-tives address issues related to sustain-ability. Examples include the Centerfor Local, State, and Urban Policy(CLOSUP); the William DavidsonInstitute (WDI); the CooperativeInstitute for Limnology and EcosystemResearch (CILER); and the Environ-mental Justice Initiative.

University Housing

■ University Housing is the sixthlargest campus housing system in theUnited States. Its 16 residence hallshouse about 9,700 students whileanother 3,777 residents live in the nearly 1,500 community apartments.University Housing is committed tobeing an environmentally friendly placeto live and work, and they have manyaccomplishments to prove it.

■ Recycling efforts began in 1989when Housing introduced newspaperand cardboard recycling in the resi-dence halls. Since then, recycling effortshave expanded to include glass, plastic,batteries, metal, and polystyrene foam.Food waste from five dining halls, onecampus coffee shop, and one cateringkitchen is collected and sent for com-posting. As a result of these efforts, it is estimated that 52 percent by vol-ume of Housing’s solid waste is beingrecycled.

■ Environmental conservation andstewardship is being promoted throughan extensive communications effort.Housing has published a number ofnewsletters educating readers on every-thing from the potential hazards ofusing polystyrene food containers tothe benefits of buying locally grown,organic foods. Informative fact sheetshave been produced highlighting water,energy, paper, and recycling initiatives.A number of educational bulletin boardposters also have been displayed in aneffort to get students involved.

■ A new and innovative initiative isthe LeeDer Program–Living Examples of Eco-Friendly Decision-making. Thisprogram taps into the energy of students,encouraging them to volunteer topledge to reduce their environmentalimpact through conservation. Volun-teers join the LeeDer Program byagreeing to practice at least five envi-

ronmentally friendly activities whenev-er possible. The activities representexamples of alternate transportation,recycling, and water and energy conser-vation. By learning sustainable habitsnow, intelligent and educated choicescan be made later in life.

University Health System

When it comes to medicine, theUniversity of Michigan Health Systemis clearly among the leaders and best,and is recognized as one of the premierhealth systems in the country.

■ The U-M Hospitals and HealthCenters consistently rank high on thehonor roll of America’s Best Hospitalscompiled by U.S. News & WorldReport, and was ranked 14th best in2007. The U-M Health System(UMHS) includes three hospitals, 30

health centers, and 120 out-patient clinics. As stated ear-lier, only the data associatedwith resource use and wastegeneration from the AnnArbor Medical campus andthe East Ann Arbor MedicalCenter are included in thisreport. The inpatient facili-ties on the medical campusfeature 913 licensed beds,and a total operating budgetof $1.36 billion for theHospitals and HealthCenters. In 2007, UniversityHospital EmergencyServices Urgent Carereceived 74,478 patients, andprocessed 61,556 surgicalcases. The University Hos-pital is one of the largestteaching hospitals in thecountry and has a strongcommitment to environmen-tal stewardship.

■ Examples of the hospital’s envi-ronmental commitment reaches backmore than 30 years when the first ener-gy conservation program was initiatedin 1973. Over the years, a number ofenergy-saving programs have beendeveloped as building energy has beenreduced through the Energy Star andGreen Lights programs. One exampleof the effectiveness of the energy reduc-tion program was the recognition bythe Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) when the Hospital received the1995 Green Lights Partner of the YearAward. Since that time, the energyreduction program has continued tomature, and now motion sensor light-ing controls have been installed in rest-rooms, classrooms, and offices. Thenew Mott Women’s and Children’sreplacement hospital currently underconstruction has committed to gainingLEED (Leadership in Energy andEnvironmental Design) certification by the U.S. Green Building Council and will be one of the largest LEED-certified hospitals in the country uponcompletion.

■ Regulations in the United Statesrequire that medical supplies beremoved from public use after specifictime periods. Many of these suppliesstill are useable and safe. These expiredsupplies are collected and donated tosupport medical relief efforts world-wide. The UMHS “Do It” programrecently was launched to increase participation with stewardship effortsby students and staff. Posters givereminders to “Can It” by recycling cans,or to “Flip It” by turning off unusedlights. The quarterly newsletter,Conserve It, provides examples ofefforts by UMHS employees who aremaking a difference. The new “Be aSteward” program has resulted in 65volunteers from throughout UMHScommitting to be leaders in conserva-tion efforts.

The College of Engineering

Housing Poster

■ A successful reuse/recycle programhas been in place in the Health Systemfor many years. Electronics, computers,fluorescent light bulbs, cell phones, bat-teries, and medical texts are collectedfor resale or recycling. Pathology uses a distillation apparatus to recycle andreuse solvents such as alcohol andxylene, and silver is being recoveredfrom waste generated by x-ray-develop-ing operations. The Hospital eliminat-ed all mercury from the system, and in1999 was recognized by the HealthCare Without Harm organization asbeing one of the first 100 hospitals inthe country to be mercury-free. TheHospitals for a Healthy Environmentorganization has recognized UniversityHospital for all of its combined envi-ronmental efforts by presenting theSustained Environmental LeadershipAward in 2004, 2005, and 2006.

Spotlight on New

Environmental

Initiatives

Environmental responsibility andsustainable growth are core values to theUniversity’s academic units, operationsdepartments, and student groups. Eachyear the Environmental Report willselect a number of recent environmen-tal initiatives that have put togethersuccessful programs addressing environ-mental sustainability issues or concerns.We look forward to highlighting theprogress of these initiatives and newprograms in future publications.

Graham EnvironmentalSustainability

■ Each year the Graham Instituteawards five or six major seed funding

grants in support of multidisciplinaryresearch awardsaddressing sustain-ability issues andopportunities. In2006 the GrahamInstitute awardedapproximately$900,000 over atwo-year period.The 2006 researchawards addressed a range of topicsincluding the impactof nano particles,sustainable aquacul-ture, mobility, vector-transmitteddiseases, and safedrinking water.

■ The GrahamInstitute also awarded$600,000 to 12 Graham PhD graduatefellows for two years of sustainabilityeducation and research. This funding,together with support from theirdepartments, will help them focus on a variety of topics ranging from water-borne pathogens, bio-fuel impact onenvironment and health, land use poli-cy, Amazon agriculture, green roofimpacts, and corporate governance andglobal trade’s impact on health. Inaddition to the major multidisciplinaryresearch awards and the GrahamFellows program, the Institute alsooffers a small grant program to studentgroups, administrative staff, and individ-ual faculty to promote sustainability oncampus.

■ The Institute also works with fac-ulty from across the campus to developnew and modified courses for graduateand undergraduate study. A number ofthese courses will be introduced for thefirst time in 2007.

Environmental and EnergyInitiative

■ During the next three years, staff,faculty and students will partner tocombine their knowledge and skills toincrease environmental stewardship andenergy conservation in campus facilities.Overall leadership coordination for theprogram will be the responsibility ofstaff in Facilities & Operations. Thesix-point Environmental and EnergyInitiative will include the following keyefforts:

■ Environmental Reporting—Occu-pational Safety and EnvironmentalHealth staff will prepare an annualUniversity of Michigan environmentalreport based on data collected fromunits across campus. This effort willreport progress and trends against theEnvironmental Performance Indicator(EPI), highlight academic and researchprograms pertaining to environmental

and energy issues, and review campusoperations activities. The 2007Environmental Report is the first output from this initiative.

■ Renewable Energy—Plant Opera-tions staff will explore purchasingrenewable energy credits, work withexternal energy partners to expandaccess to renewable energy for use oncampus, and improve efficiencies at theCentral Power Plant.

■ Alternative Transportation—Parking and Transportation Servicesstaff will continue to work with viablecost-effective, alternative transporta-tion modes such as commuter rail andsubscription bus service. They willmaintain access and continue promot-ing current successful options such asvan and car pooling, and expand alter-native fuel use in the University fleet.

■ Green Purchasing—ProcurementServices staff will promote purchasingenvironmentally friendly products.Using products made from renewable,recycled, and remanufactured materials,

The Michigan Union

2004 Energy Star Partner of the Year

Awards and

Accomplishments

Many U-M environmentalefforts have received nationalrecognition. Further highlightingour commitment to environmen-tal stewardship and excellence.

■ The EnvironmentalProtection Agency:• National Student DesignCompetition for Sustainabilityfocusing on People, Prosperity,and the Planet (P3), 2006 • Best Workplaces forCommuters, gold status, 2005• Energy Star Partner of the Year,2004• Combined Heat and PowerAward, Central Power Plant, 2003

■ Hospitals for a HealthyEnvironment: Sustained Envir-onmental Leadership Award,2004, 2005, 2006

■ Leadership in Energyand Environmental Design(LEED): Gold LEED certifica-tion awarded to Dana Building,2005

■ Michigan RecyclingCoalition: 2007 Recycler of the Year

■ Washtenaw CountyWaste Knot Program:Awarded 2004 partnership

such as remanufactured toner car-tridges and post consumer wastepaper, reduces landfill waste.Substituting traditionally used laboratory chemicals for less toxicalternatives increases lab safety andeliminates disposal issues.

■ New Construction Projects—Staff from Architecture, Engineer-ing, and Construction will challengearchitects to exceed the minimumbaseline energy performance man-dated by code and require architectsto perform a full energy analysis of proposed designs and energy savings measures.

■ Wolverine Teams—PlantOperations staff will engage build-ing occupants and perform building-specific audits designed to identifyenergy reduction and environmentalconservation opportunities. Build-ing occupants will be encouraged torealize opportunities through infor-mation campaigns, training sessions,building system tune-ups, and roomscheduling revisions.

30 31

3332 The University of Michigan willcontinue a tradition of strong commit-ment to the environment. It is ourresponsibility to wisely use resources in order to benefit the future of theworld. As we work through dailyactivities, it is important to considerthe big picture—not just what is hap-pening in the present, but the impactinto the future. Our mission is to trainand educate our future citizens, and toperform high-quality research that willmake the world a better place for all.The better we do our mission, the bet-ter chance we have of reaching a sus-tainable world that will benefit futuregenerations.

Access to information about whatwe are teaching and how we are operat-ing is extremely important. ThisAnnual Environmental Report is thefirst step toward providing details on the University’s environmental stew-ardship efforts. We recognize that the visibility and access to campus sus-tainability activity information can berelatively difficult as the information isspread across many schools, collegesand departments. To help improveaccess, updates on environmental activi-

ties and web links to campus groupsinvolved with the environment pro-grams are available through our websiteat www.oseh.umich.edu/stewardship/.

Moving forward, OSEH staff willwork with the Graham Institute todevelop an improved campus environ-mental stewardship website that will beeasily accessed through the Universityhomepage. This site is planned to beoperational in early 2008 and regularlywill be updated with progress reportsand campus activities. It also willinclude easy access to groups on cam-pus with environmental interests.

While the 2007 EnvironmentalReport includes data pertaining to awide range of environmental indicators,not every topic can be addressed in asingle publication. Some efforts arehelpful to the environment but are partof a larger, more challenging issue. Forinstance, our University waste statisticsindicate we successfully recycle hun-dreds of plastic containers. But a morefundamental issue is the actual use ofbottled water versus tap water. Bottledwater containers are made of polyethyl-ene terephthalate (PET) which isderived from nonrenewable crude oil.

Energy resources are expended duringmanufacturing, packaging and trans-portation to the site of consumption.The University’s Procurement Servicesstaff estimates that 584,000 disposablewater bottles were delivered to U-M’sAnn Arbor campus during the FY2007. The University reduces theimpact of bottled water use by makingrecycle bins readily available through-out campus and by encouraging the useof reusable nalgene drinking bottles.This is but one example of a complexissue that merits future discussionacross our University community.

In the meantime,

if you have any thoughts

or suggestions, we

welcome discussion.

You may contact us

through a general

email address at

envstewardship@umich.edu.

into the future U-M 2007 Annual Environmental Report

Aerial View of Campus

The primary tool for the organization and storage of environmental data is the Environmental DataRepository (EDR). The EDR was developed in 2005 by the joint efforts of students, faculty, and staff fromthe Center for Sustainable Systems and various operations departments. The EDR is a centralized databasethat processes environmental data points and reports them in terms of eight key performance indicators andover 50 operational metrics, in the categories of energy, emissions, water, land use, waste, and cross-cuttingand emerging issues. Data input for the EDR begins with 2004 statistics, and the spreadsheet is currentlyable to accept data through 2010.

Information is entered into the EDR through a user interface. The interface is sectioned in such a way asto mimic the environmental performance indicators as recommended by the Environmental Task Force.

As data is entered through the EDR interface, it is stored in a series of worksheets. The data is then sub-jected to a series of calculations designed to present the data into an appropriate reporting format. Data sum-maries can be viewed from the “summary” worksheet while simple graphs can be displayed from the “graphing”worksheet.

The goal of the Annual Environmental Report is to collect environmentally relevant information fromthroughout the University of Michigan Ann Arbor campus. In order to do this, a group of 27 key contactshave been identified to supply pertinent data from their respective areas of expertise.

The EDR has been designed to be dynamic, allowing flexibility in order to adapt to changing require-ments throughout the lifetime of the project. As information continues to be added to the data set, the EDRwill be a valuable tool for analyzing trends and establishing U-M environmental benchmarks. Additionalinformation concerning the development of the EDR project can be viewed athttp://css.snre.umich.edu/css/doc/CSS05-11.pdf

appendix AAdditional Resources

Additional Information is available through the Internet. The University of Michigan welcomes thereader to learn more about the various conservation initiatives on campus:

The Center for Sustainable Systems (CSS) www.css.snre.umich.edu

2006 Environmental Data Repository Technical Update

www.css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS06-16.pdf

Frederick A. and Barbara M. Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprisewww.erb.umich.edu

Graham Environmental Sustainability Institute (GESI) www.provost.umich.edu/gesi

Sustainability Course Listing www.provost.umich.edu/gesi/academics/course_listing.ph

Michigan Memorial Phoenix Energy Institute (MMPEI) www.mmpei.umich.edu

Occupational Safety and Environmental Health (OSEH) www.oseh.umich.edu

Environmental Stewardship and Emergency Planning www.oseh.umich.edu/stewardship

Plant Operations www.plantops.umich.edu

Annual Utilities Report www.plantops.umich.edu/utilities/Utilities/reports.html

Waste Management Services www.plantops.umich.edu/grounds/recycle

Transportation Services www.ptv.umich.edu

The President’s Environmental Task Force www.umich.edu/presa/committees/envrpt

U-M Health System www.med.umich.edu/envsteward

University Housing www.housing.umich.edu/services/environ/index.html

appendix BThe Environmental Data Repository

34 35

Cross-Cutting & Emerging FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Sustainability TrendBuilding Utilization (total conditioned ft2) 12,521,796 17,224,085 17,184,347 15,664,421 NegativeBuilding Utilization (total conditioned ft2/person) 172 233 229 206 NegativeLEED Certification (# of LEED certified buildings) 0 1 1 1 PositiveLEED Certification (# of LEED Platinum certified buildings) 0 0 0 0 No ChangeLEED Certification (# of LEED Gold certified buildings) 0 1 1 1 PositiveLEED Certification (# of LEED Silver certified buildings) 0 0 0 0 No ChangeLEED Certification (# of LEED Bronze certified buildings) 0 0 0 0 No ChangeLEED Certification (% of all buildings) 0 0 0 0 NegativeAesthetics (# of awards received) 4 4 0 0 NegativeUndergraduate Degrees 10 9 NegativeMasters Degrees 11 12 PositiveDoctoral Degrees 15 14 NegativeEnrollment data 9,563 16,334 PositiveCourses offered this year 283 393 PositiveEnrollment per course 34 42 Positive

Air Emissions FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Sustainability TrendTotal Greenhouse Gas Emissions (MTCO2E) 294,892 280,354 288,993 260,110 PositiveTotal Greenhouse Gas Emissions (MTCO2E)/person 4.1 3.8 3.8 3.4 PositiveTotal Greenhouse Gas Emissions (MTCE) 80,425 76,460 78,816 70,939 PositiveTotal Greenhouse Gas Emissions (MTCE)/person 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 PositiveStationary Sources: Greenhouse Gas Emissions (MTCO2E) 287,837 273,143 281,744 252,846 PositiveStationary Sources: Greenhouse Gas Emissions (MTCE) 78,501 74,494 76,839 68,958 PositiveStationary Sources: CO (lbs) 437,800 420,908 434,871 390,267 PositiveStationary Sources: CO (lbs/person) 6 6 6 5 PositiveStationary Sources: NOx (lbs) 693,460 662,589 684,042 613,881 PositiveStationary Sources: NOx (lbs/person) 10 9 9 8 PositiveStationary Sources: Volatile Organic Compounds (lbs) 36,263 32,835 33,652 30,467 PositiveStationary Sources: Volatile Organic Compounds (lbs/person) 0 0 0 0 PositiveStationary Sources: PM-10 (lbs) 30,106 28,604 29,509 26,482 PositiveStationary Sources: PM-10 (lbs/person) 0 0 0 0 PositiveStationary Sources: PM-2.5 (lbs) 29,654 28,556 29,509 26,482 PositiveStationary Sources: PM-2.5 (lbs/person) 0 0 0 0 PositiveStationary Sources: SO2 (lbs) 3,106 3,004 3,106 2,788 PositiveStationary Sources: SO2 (lbs/person) 0 0 0 0 PositiveStationary Sources: Pb (lbs) 3 3 3 2 PositiveStationary Sources: Pb (lbs/person) 0 0 0 0 PositiveMobile Sources: Renewable GHG Emissions (MTCO2E) 1,220 1,260 1,341 1,303 NegativeMobile Sources: Renewable GHG Emissions (MTCE) 333 344 366 355 NegativeMobile Sources: Fossil GHG Emissions (MTCO2E) 5,834 5,951 5,908 5,961 NegativeMobile Sources: Fossil GHG Emissions (MTCE) 1,591 1,623 1,611 1,626 NegativeSalt Use (lbs) 3,026,000 4,012,000 3,276,000 3,772,000.00 NegativeSalt Use (lbs/person) 42 54 44 50 NegativeSand Use (lbs) 20,000 0 0 0 PositiveSand Use (lbs/person) 0.3 0 0 0 Positive

Energy FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Sustainability TrendBuilding Energy (Btu) 6,521,421,326,534 6,266,792,067,998 6,751,526,104,794 6,226,434,567,432 PositiveBuilding Energy (Btu/ft2) 237,480 223,736 236,903 207,917 PositiveBuilding Energy (Btu/person) 89,694,546 84,861,837 89,864,583 81,764,318 PositiveBuilding Energy (Btu/ft2/person) 3.3 3.0 3.2 2.7 PositiveTotal Energy Consumption (Btu) 6,622,321,326,534 6,369,871,067,998 6,855,207,104,794 6,330,316,496,423 PositiveTotal Energy Consumption (Btu/person) 91,082,307 86,257,682 91,244,604 83,128,475 PositiveTransportation Energy Consumption (Btu) 100,900,265,702 103,078,780,484 103,680,917,187 103,881,928,991 NegativeTransportation Energy Consumption (Btu/person) 1,387,765 1,395,842 1,380,020 1,364,157 PositiveBus Energy Consumption (Btu) 35,211,327,293 38,112,488,168 39,121,130,621 38,598,547,601 NegativeBus Energy Consumption (Btu/passenger) 7,488 7,347 6,991 6,598 PositiveFleet Vehicles Energy Consumption (Btu) 65,688,938,409 64,966,292,317 64,559,786,566 65,283,381,390 PositiveRenewable Percentage for Transportation Energy (%) 28.2 28.4 30.9 29.7 PositiveCampus Bus Ridership (Total passengers) 4,702,261 5,187,602 5,596,054 5,850,234 PositiveVan Pooling (Vehicle miles) 471,210 894,017 1,291,409 1,436,915 PositiveVan Pooling (Passenger miles) 3,094,729 5,712,293 7,824,153 8,659,109 PositiveAATA Bus Ridership 851,000 1,697,859 2,040,282 2,103,611 PositiveBicycle Ridership (Number of bike racks) 3,366 3,410 3,412 3,412 PositivePurchased Electricity (MWh) 341,949 339,062 433,064 437,583 NegativePurchased Electricity from Renew. Sources (MWh) 1,710 339 866 4,813 Positive

appendix CRaw Data Overview

36

Land Use FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Sustainability TrendTotal Impervious Surface Area (acres) 409 419 427 530 NegativeTotal Impervious Surface Area (% of campus area) 13% 14% 14% 17% NegativeTotal Green Space (acres) 2,661 2,651 2,644 2,541 NegativeTotal Green Space (% of campus area) 87% 86% 86% 83% NegativeMaintained Green Space (acres) 625 718 512 512 PositiveMaintained Green Space (% of campus area) 20% 23% 17% 17% PositiveUnmaintained (Natural) Green Space (acres) 2,445 2,352 2,559 2,559 PositiveUnmaintained (Natural) Green Space (% of campus area) 80% 77% 83% 83% PositiveTotal Land Area (acres) 3,070 3,070 3,071 3,071 PositiveTree Population 7,198 7,198 14,180 14,180 PositiveTotal Building Area (ft2) 27,460,970 28,009,778 28,499,095 29,946,735 NegativeTotal Building Area (ft2/person) 378 379 379 393 NegativeDeck Parking (# of deck parking spots) 9,492 10,197 10,058 10,058 PositiveTotal Parking (# of parking spots) 23,252 23,322 23,591 23,591 NegativeDeck Parking (% of parking spaces that are parking decks) 41% 44% 43% 43% Positive

Waste FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Sustainability TrendTotal Solid Waste (tons) 14,342 16,143 17,149 15,959 NegativeTotal Solid Waste (tons/person) 0.20 0.22 0.23 0.21 Negative% Recycled 29.2 27.8 27.8 28.3 NegativeHospital Waste (tons) 4,422 5,885 6,169 6,234 NegativeHospital Waste (tons/person) 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.08 NegativeWaste from U-M Campus (tons) 9,850 10,106 10,831 9,626 NegativeWaste from U-M Campus (tons/person) 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.13 PositivePaper Recycled (tons) 3,360 3,583 3,771 3,541 PositivePaper Recycled (% of total waste) 23.4% 22.2% 22.0% 22.2% NegativeGlass Containers Recycled (tons) 126 107 140 153 PositiveGlass Containers Recycled (% of total waste) 0.88% 0.67% 0.82% 0.96% PositivePlastics Recycled (tons) 40 34 62 99 PositivePlastics Recycled (% of total waste) 0.28% 0.21% 0.36% 0.62% PositiveMetal Containers Recycled (tons) 16 20 17 18 PositiveMetal Containers Recycled (% of total waste) 0.11% 0.13% 0.10% 0.12% NegativeConstruction In-house Waste Recycled (tons) 153 150 129 193 PositiveConstruction In-house Waste Recycled (%) 9.5% 11.3% 7.9% 20.8% PositiveComposting (tons) 238 219 257 261 PositiveComposting (tons/person) 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 PositiveReuse-PD ($) 1,300,000 1,400,000 1,251,000 1,872,000 PositiveReuse-PD ($/person) 18 19 17 25 PositiveReuse (tons) 2.9 1.8 6.4 8.4 PositiveReuse (tons/person) 0.00004 0.00002 0.00009 0.00011 PositiveRegulated Recycling- Batteries (tons) 17 25 24 PositiveRegulated Recycling- Lamp Ballasts (tons) 18 31 23 PositiveRegulated Recycling- Consumer Electronics (tons) 0 55 54 51 PositiveRegulated Recycling- Fluorescent Bulbs (tons) 35 47 49 48 PositiveRegulated Recycling- Solvents (gallons) 0 6,120 3,360 PositiveRegulated Recycling- Transportation Oil (gallons) 0 1,150 0 No ChangeRegulated Recycling- Latex Paint (gallons) 0 374 312 PositiveRegulated Recycling- Coolants (gallons) 0 1,270 500 Positive

Water Use FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Sustainability TrendTotal Purchased Water (gal) 1,195,764,768 1,285,730,468 1,315,767,904 1,333,847,064 NegativeTotal Purchased Water (gal/person) 16,446 17,411 17,513 17,516 NegativeTotal Water Use (gal) 1,230,582,918 1,320,548,618 1,347,236,834 1,365,347,064 NegativeTotal Water Use (gal/person) 16,925 17,882 17,932 17,929 NegativeTotal Discharge to Sewers (gal) 956,611,814 1,028,584,374 1,052,614,323 1,067,077,651 NegativeTotal Discharge to Sewers (gal/person) 13,157 13,929 14,011 14,013 Negative

FY= July 1 – June 30