ENVIRONMENTAL SELF-STUDY

CHAPTER TWO: RESOURCES & INFRASTRUCTURE

 

PART ONE: UTILITIES

Overview

America's dependency on petroleum contributes to critical environmental problems such as global warming, acid rain, and smog. Reliance on foreign oil threatens national security, and extracting fossil fuels domestically continues to threaten fragile ecosystems and create the potential for devastating oil spills. Energy efficiency is the least polluting, lowest-cost energy resource available. Cheaper and safer than extracting fossil fuels and constructing dangerous and inefficient nuclear power plants, using energy wisely not only reduces environmental impacts but also saves money. Campus energy-efficiency programs and advanced technology programs have become models for institutional efficiency and have cut millions from energy bills. Using cleaner fuels, such as gas, can also reduce environmental impacts significantly. --Campus Ecology

Alternatives to our current patterns of consumption become more inviting with each decade of research and innovation. Renewable energy technology, which harnesses solar, geothermal, or wind power, has now achieved efficiency levels comparable to those of fossil fuels and has become remarkably cost-competitive for many applications. It is estimated that every dollar invested in efficiency and renewables produces about twice as many jobs as a dollar invested in fossil or nuclear power. --Ecodemia

For ease of understanding, this section will be broken into five sections:

Each utility is summarized as to its relevance to the campus. Recommendations for energy and water conservation are at the end of this section.

Electricity

The 1996 physical plant strategic five-year plan calls for implementation of the Green Lights Program and High Tension (H.T.) redistribution. It is the plant's intention to utilize energy savings to fund the capital improvements.

The basis for this plan comes from the 1991 electrical distribution study performed by Vinokur-Pace Engineering along with studies performed by E-finity energy consultants.

Some portions of the Vinokur Plan have been put into place such as provisions within the Gutman sub-station for future main campus H.T. consolidation. The estimated cost in 1991 dollars for the total plan was $482,352. It projected approximately a five year pay back based solely on savings related to buying energy cheaper, not by using less energy. In 1994 E-finity started working with the College, along with Rumsey (one of the College's parts suppliers), in consultation with PECO to present programs to reduce the energy usage of the College and qualify the College to become a Green Lights member. Some energy efficient lighting had been done within the library and Architecture & Design center prior to that time. In 1995 Hayward, Scholler, and Archer were converted to Green Lights standards. It is the intention to become an EPA Green Lights member and complete the campus conversion over the next five years.

The economics for the program are as follows:

Additional programs are being implemented that concern motion detection which would considerably reduce electricity use in buildings with unconventional usage. We would also like to expand energy management automation beyond the Gutman Library.

Gas

The College buys natural gas in two forms, G.S. or General Service and BPS-S or Interruptable Service.

General Service gas runs about $7.90 per MCF consistently. BPS-S fluctuates from about $4.20 to $8.00 per MCF.

Both forms of gas comes out of the same pipe in the street. The difference is that PGW has the right to curtail BPS-S gas at their discretion to balance their volume requirements. We must then run on alternate fuel. Typically we run #2 oil.

Many of our boilers have dual fuel capability. Through use of therm equivalency analysis we choose which fuel to run at any give time. Naturally when PGW curtails our BPS-S service we must run our oil alternative.

Based on our ability to know our usage and commit to bulk futures during times of least demand for fuel oil, our break even for oil vs. gas is about $5.00/MCF or a little under $.70/gallon.

The College has one set of high efficiency Luchinvar pulse fired boilers which are about 10% more efficient than the Weil-McClain duel fuel units. They must however run G.S. service. Therefore, while they are more efficient, their fuel service cost 58% more.

Oil

The majority of the major boilers have been replaced within the last fifteen years so they are modern and relatively efficient. All boilers are calibrated for excess 02 annually to make them run as efficiently as possible.

For the past five years the plants' administration has committed to do bulk oil futures during the summer months for oil that is delivered and used during the winter. This has allowed the College to stabilize its energy costs by manipulating the fuel it burns based on cost and availability. Much of this was discussed in the Gas section.

The most obvious opportunity for fuel conservation lies within the plant's control capability. Typically the buildings are not zoned efficiently. This causes the plant to overheat buildings with comfort balance occurring through manual control and individuals opening windows.

Water Usage

The College experienced about a 20% increase in the cost of its water from the Philadelphia Water Department two years ago. At the same time the quality of constant pressure availability has not improved during times of peak demand. The College is going through the process of updating its service to the City's new standards. This coupled with the City's water pressure problems has called for the installation of booster pump systems in many of our buildings.

Philadelphia College has a number of programs in place to conserve water:

Storm Water Management

Most of the campus lies within the Wissahickon watershed. The main campus lies mostly in a zone allowing only 35% of impervious surface. During the construction of the Gutman Library, completed in 1992, the watershed guidelines required the College to bring the main campus into full compliance concerning surface run-off and retainage requirements. Boles Smythe Engineering performed an analysis of the site and designed two retainage basins which are installed near the tennis courts and by the Wallenburg center. At a cost of nearly $1,000,000, main campus was brought into compliance. For the most part, the Ravenhill campus falls just outside of the watershed and has less stringent requirements. During the construction of the Ravenhill and Ronson facilities this property was re-graded and proper detection was installed in the area of the soccer field.

Recommendations for Energy Reduction

Recommendations for Water Conservation

Recommendations for Waste Water and Storm Runoff

 

PART TWO: DINING SERVICES

Overview

While you may not easily detect the connection between an environment at risk and the dinner that was served last night in your campus dining hall, a host of ecological problems can be traced to food choices. The type of meals served, where food comes from, and how it is grown or raised can have an effect on global warming, water pollution, forest destruction, topsoil erosion, as well as how self-sufficient your local farmers may be.

Consider the facts: producing foods without chemical pesticides benefits the environment by avoiding the water pollution caused by pesticides in runoff and reducing the amount of waste generated by pesticide manufacturing plants. It also protects the health of farmworkers who would otherwise be exposed to toxic chemicals. Buying locally-grown foods rather than products that are shipped form hundreds or thousands of miles away results in less air pollution and fuel consumption due to transportation. Providing vegetarian meals has environmental as well as personal health benefits. Livestock production is a major contributor to topsoil erosion, uses far more water and energy that the productions of non-meat foods, and contributes to over half of all water pollution in the United States. Furthermore, over 75 percent of the pesticide residues in the US diet are supplied by meat and dairy products, while only 10 percent are supplied by fruits, vegetables, and grains.

Campus food services can use their resources to foster more sustainable agricultural practices and healthier food choices by purchasing regional and certified organically grown products, by offering a greater selections of meals that are vegetarian (meatless) and vegan (containing no animal products), and by educating the campus community about the connection between diet and the environment. --Campus Ecology

Present Situation

Philadelphia College of Textiles & Science's Dining Services has taken rather progressive steps in menu options compared to some of the colleges we have worked with during this study. There is always a vegetarian option available to customers as well as salad bar and pizza. Dining Services continues to remain accessible to faculty, students, and staff who continually offer their suggestions on how possibly to improve the variety and quality of the meals served to better meet the needs of the campus community.

Our Dining Services is a campus-run entity in that we control the entire operation from food purchase and preparation, to setting up and serving food at events. Dining Services purchases food based on quality and price standards. Given the flexibility that our Dining Services has in purchasing, Philadelphia College could easily become a model for the aforementioned environmental issues such as purchasing from local growers to lower transportation needs, and purchasing at least a portion of our food from certified organically maintained farms. These initiatives that can be taken by Dining Services would not only produce what can been seen as "quality of life" benefits, but they would also promote a positive and attractive image for the College and Dining Services.

Utensils, Utensils, Utensils

The College has taken an active role in promoting the use of recycled products and the need for conservation by its purchase of the 100% recycled napkins from Wisconsin Tissue. These napkins are a wonderful presence at every table throughout the campus as they espouse the need for source reduction and recycling on campus. The progressive move toward more environmentally sound operations can also be applied to the other operations relating to Dining Services. Many steps to raise the level of awareness of the campus community can result in the reduced consumption of the disposable items available to the customer which would contribute not only to lowering the environmental impact of Dining Services, but also the operating budget. The reusable mug program is an excellent example of campus outreach in hopes of reducing the amount of cups used for take out beverages. These mugs are sold at a cost of $4.00 each which includes a coupon for a free beverage, as well as a discount on future beverage purchases.

Paper or Plastic?

There is a growing debate on campus and around the country surrounding the use of plastic and Styrofoam® in place of paper products. Obviously the best alternative and most ecological choice is to not use disposable products at all. However, to accommodate the take-out portion of Dining Service's operations, Styrofoam® and plastic containers are provided. The controversy surrounds the destruction of trees for paper products and the creation of harmful pollutants such as CFC and HCFC to produce Styrofoam®.There are arguments for each product starting with cost. Styrofoam® and plastic products currently are cheaper than paper products. That is clearly a deciding factor if not the deciding factor in the decision making process. The Styrofoam® cups also provide additional insulation for hot beverages which you do not get with the paper products. Dining Services has noted that customers tend to take two paper cups for hot beverages to better insulate their cup compared to the one Styrofoam® cup needed to do the same job.

The other argument is for sustainability. Paper products, although produced from trees, require less oil (a limited fossil fuel) to produce compared to Styrofoam® and plastic products. Trees are a renewable resource which should be conserved, but if used wisely can be sustained indefinitely compared to the fossil fuels needed to produce Styrofoam®. The Styrofoam® used by Dining Services is CFC free which appeared to be a step in the right direction. However, it is reported that the HCFCs which replaced the CFCs are only slightly less destructive as they enter the atmosphere in the production process. In addition to the polluting aspects of Styrofoam® and plastic, there is the issue of biodegradability. It is true that it some cases it takes paper products many years to decompose in a landfill, however, there is not even an estimate on how long it takes Styrofoam® to biodegrade in a landfill. This further contributes to the growing shortage of landfill space in this country.

In short, both products have their advantages and disadvantages both in cost and in production means. However, in light of an agreed upon goal of sustainability, given the information we have now, paper products seem to be the environmentally preferred choice. However, budgetary constraints also contribute to the proliferation of Styrofoam® and plastic products being used in Dining Services as they are, at least currently, less expensive.

Recommendations for Menu Options

Recommendations for Waste Reduction and Reuse

Recommendations for Recycling

 

PART THREE: CAMPUS DESIGN AND GROWTH

Facilities Master Plan

Concurrent with the development of the Vision Statement and the various unit plans, The Hillier Group, an architectural and planning consulting firm engaged by the College, began to develop a Facilities Master Plan, guided by the Mission Statement, the Vision Statement, unit plans and information garnered through a series of "charrettes" (group discussions that focused on individual and departmental needs for the future). The Hillier Group also met extensively with members of President's Council and various faculty and administrators to ensure that the emerging facilities plan would adequately meet their future needs.

After evaluating the College's goals and objectives, the Hillier Group developed a Facilities Master Plan. Below are some of its recommendations that will significantly modify the appearance and ideology of the campus:

1. Construct a new community center with a recreation facility to promote a sense of community and to establish a focal point for campus gatherings.

2. Develop approximately 30,000 square feet of classroom and new program space that include improved equipment and technology.

3. Continue upgrades in academic technology and campus-wide computer networking to better serve the College population.

4. Improve the College's infrastructure to better manage the increased student population.

5. Improve the campus landscape to maintain an environment conducive to higher learning and to enhance security.

The College has scheduled the improvements proposed within the Facilities Master Plan in three phases. Both the Planning Committee of the Board and the full Board of Trustees approved the vision represented by the Facilities Master Plan and the implementation of Phase I of the plan. Phase I calls for constructing a community center; adding to Hayward Hall to accommodate new and emerging programs such as industrial design, physician assistant and materials technology; renovating Archer Hall, White Corners and Hayward Hall; upgrading technology and constructing pedestrian walks and surface parking. (The text of the Facilities Master Plan is in Appendix 2.3 of the Middle States Self-Study. The complete Facilities Master Plan is found in Exhibit 2-C in the Middle States Self-Study document.) --Middle States Self-Study

Overview

Sustainable design principles have not reached the "mainstream" of architectural thinking, but they have begun to emerge as both a means of preserving the health of the planet and as a method to achieve long-term savings and efficiency. The Recommendations discussed below are meant to provide a framework for dialogue within the Philadelphia College of Textiles & Science community about how the campus should be developed. It should not, therefore, be taken as a moral imperative.

The reality of achieving sustainability is by its very nature a gradual process fostered by education, experimentation and implementation. The state of sustainability at Philadelphia College is primarily in the education stage in terms of building design and campus planning. There are, however, efforts underway already on campus to reduce waste and to promote recycling (See Solid Waste and Recycling.). The Department of physical plant has incorporated a number of "green" initiatives including installing energy efficient lighting systems and low flow bathroom fixtures (see Utilities).

There is still much to be learned regarding the benefits of sustainable design and planning. In the spirit of "education," the following recommendations are divided into five distinct sections to help the reader understand sustainable design initiatives in a holistic way. Each section will be preceded by a brief introduction which will describe the conceptual relevance of the particular initiative.

Part 1: The Green Layer

Perhaps the overriding principle of sustainable design addresses the issue of the green layer -- that is to say, areas free of impervious surfaces and covered with soil and indigenous plantings. The green layer aids the planet in maintaining clean air, clean water and uncontaminated soil. The green layer also provides adequate support for biologic diversity, balancing micro-climates as well as the less tangible but all important visceral benefits of shade and color.

Philadelphia College easily could be considered an excellent example of a green campus. The decision to eliminate the vehicular path running through the center of campus is very good in that it reduces the amount of impervious surface. Most of the campus pathways need to be repaved. The College should research paving materials which would allow a certain amount of water to percolate rather than run-off. There are several recommendations which could improve not only the amount of the green layer, but more importantly raise the quality level of that same green layer.

Part 2: Improve to Protect

The quality of the Earth's environment is directly impacted by the act of construction, habitation and demolition of human-made structures. The primary goals of this principle are to: reduce the amount of polluted air and water, diminish the amount of recyclables circulated into regular trash removal, and reduce other less tangible forms of pollution such as noise levels, invisible gasses, and random electric currents. The ability of architecture and planning to diminish or reduce the negative impact of the built environment is entirely within reach given the current knowledge base of selected professionals.

The College currently has a recycling program in place (See Solid Waste and Recycling). It is possible to aid this process through design by allowing for space to store recyclables. In the case of new multiple story buildings, vertical trash chutes could be installed to encourage recycling. Indoor air quality is a major issue requiring careful consideration of all interior material selections. Efforts should be made to identify whether architects and interior designers under consideration for hire possess the appropriate knowledge to specify non-toxic materials. Although there is currently no plan existing for gray and rain water reclamation, there is room to incorporate this technology into building renovations and new building designs.

Air:

Water:

Earth:

Part 3: Import to Export

The United States is the world's largest consumer of energy. Although the population of this country contributes only 5% of the world's population, U.S. citizens consume 30% of the world's total energy. Due to recent discoveries of natural gas and oil reserves, this trend is likely to continue. While there appears to be plenty of natural resources to supply America's "power," the resulting pollution from the processing and consuming of the energy is still a primary concern. Construction and habitation of buildings accounts for roughly 50% of all energy consumed in the U.S. This number could be drastically reduced by a number of measures including solar power, energy efficient mechanical systems, and low-tech passive mechanical systems.

Philadelphia College currently has several programs underway to improve energy efficiency (See Utilities). Considering the large amount of new building projects on the boards (See Facilities Master Plan), the College has an unprecedented opportunity to explore alternative energy systems. The building programs for the Hayward Hall addition and the new Community Center have begun to address emerging sustainable technologies. Listed below is a large collection of possible initiatives that could help the College reduce energy consumption, curtail pollution and realize long term savings. Some of these recommendations have already been incorporated into proposed building projects.

Heating:

Cooling:

Lighting:

Power:

Embodied Energy:

Part 4: Build to Last: Bio-diversity and Programmatic Diversity

Although Biologists are well aware of the value of diversity, the concept is only just beginning to effect the architectural profession. Supporting and creating bio-diversity should be an obvious goal of the campus plan. The College should support a program to identify all existing wildlife that lives on the campus and to find out how the food chain works. In this way, new buildings and landscaping can adequately maintain the present level of bio-diversity on campus.

At the building level, the concept of diversity can be applied in the form of mixed use. The thought here is to rethink the way campus functions are dispersed to maximize each building's full potential. For example, the possibility of mixing classrooms and student living space in the same building or complex of buildings represents a serious design challenge but will insure that all areas of campus are active at all hours. This would support the desire of the administration to create a campus community. Mixing student residences in the new community center will maximize the use of that building as well as guarantee enough student population to keep it "alive" at all hours. Understandably, this may be perceived as a "radical" concept to some and should most likely be explored at an experimental level. Perhaps choosing one of the new student residences to be built along the new pedestrian path between Ravenhill and the Core campus would be a good place to start.

Bio-Diversity:

Programmatic Diversity:

Part 5: Implementation

Conclusions

The relatively short amount of time to create this piece of the Environmental Self-Study envisions the above recommendations as "talking points" rather than immediate expectations. This piece of the Study may, in fact, take 50 years to achieve. The most logical and simultaneously exciting way of beginning to implement the green agenda is to pick a demonstration building (perhaps the new community center, or one of the new student residences). In this way faculty, students, administration, and physical plant can work directly with the architect to design the project. In the interim students in third year architectural programs will be participating in a "green" studio in which designing new campus buildings will be a major focus.

Ultimately, this document should encourage the inclusion of the green agenda into the standing campus plan as much as possible without destroying or altering large amounts of work already completed. At the building level, representatives from the College's Green Planning Committee should be present at the early stages of new structures planning. Finally, a consistent and visible vehicle should be established to continue the dialogue on green issues and to further develop the environmental quality of campus life.

END OF CHAPTER TWO

GO TO CHAPTER THREE

Back to Home Back to GPC home

For comments about this site: webmaster@philacol.edu
To send e-mail to Admissions: admissions@philacol.edu
To send e-mail to Graduate Admissions: gradadm@philacol.edu

Last updated: August 22, 1997