cÜxÅ|xÜ Wx^tÄu |á ÂZÉ|Çz ZÜxxÇÊ 75 talks about the school LE… · Going Green...

$: cÜxÅ|xÜ Wx^tÄu |á ÂZÉ|Çz ZÜxxÇÊ 75 talks about the school LE… · Going Green cÜxÅ|xÜ Wx^tÄu |á ÂZÉ|Çz ZÜxxÇÊ ÂÂÂÂcÜÉÅÉà|Çz VÄxtÇ tÇw [xtÄà{ç$
“Premier DeKalb Promotes Clean and Healthy Learning Environments”

Water Conservation

Recycling

Utilities Analysis/Energy Efficiency

Going Green

cÜxÅ|xÜ Wx^tÄu |á ÂZÉ|Çz ZÜxxÇÊcÜxÅ|xÜ Wx^tÄu |á ÂZÉ|Çz ZÜxxÇÊcÜxÅ|xÜ Wx^tÄu |á ÂZÉ|Çz ZÜxxÇÊcÜxÅ|xÜ Wx^tÄu |á ÂZÉ|Çz ZÜxxÇÊ ÂÂÂÂcÜÉÅÉà|Çz VÄxtÇ tÇw [xtÄà{ç _xtÜÇ|Çz XÇä|ÜÉÇÅxÇàácÜÉÅÉà|Çz VÄxtÇ tÇw [xtÄà{ç _xtÜÇ|Çz XÇä|ÜÉÇÅxÇàácÜÉÅÉà|Çz VÄxtÇ tÇw [xtÄà{ç _xtÜÇ|Çz XÇä|ÜÉÇÅxÇàácÜÉÅÉà|Çz VÄxtÇ tÇw [xtÄà{ç _xtÜÇ|Çz XÇä|ÜÉÇÅxÇàáÊ

bÑxÜtà|ÉÇá W|ä|á|ÉÇbÑxÜtà|ÉÇá W|ä|á|ÉÇbÑxÜtà|ÉÇá W|ä|á|ÉÇbÑxÜtà|ÉÇá W|ä|á|ÉÇ ftÅ TA `Éáá VxÇàxÜftÅ TA `Éáá VxÇàxÜftÅ TA `Éáá VxÇàxÜftÅ TA `Éáá VxÇàxÜ

DJKC `ÉÇàÜxtÄ eÉtwDJKC `ÉÇàÜxtÄ eÉtwDJKC `ÉÇàÜxtÄ eÉtwDJKC `ÉÇàÜxtÄ eÉtw

gâv~xÜ? ZT FCCKGgâv~xÜ? ZT FCCKGgâv~xÜ? ZT FCCKGgâv~xÜ? ZT FCCKG„„„„IJCHIJCHIJCHIJCH ;IJK< IJI;IJK< IJI;IJK< IJI;IJK< IJI„„„„DFFDDFFDDFFDDFFD


TABLE OF CONTENTS DEKALB COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM

“Going Green” Promoting Clean and Healthy Learning Environments

I. Utilities Analysis

II. Water Conservation Plan

III. “Going Green”

a. Healthy & Safe Cleaning Program (H&SC)

b. Planning Green Facilities

c. Lighting Improvement Plan

IV. Recycling Plan

V. Author Appendix


OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT STAFF

Booth, Barry

Brown, Yolanda

Cousin, LaRon

Cox, Robert

Crosby, CR

Crowe, Kirk

Hartzell, Michael

Hill, Cynthia

Jackson, Larry

Jester, Larry

Lewis, Harold

Mann, Amy Sue

Mitchell, Ronnie

Moody, Cointa

Ngote, Stephen

Nowlin, Tiffany

Pope, Patricia

Roberson, Don

Washington, Maria

Williamson, Rick

Worthington, Michael


UTILITIES ANALYSIS

The processing and payment of utility bills have always been a rote function completed by the DeKalb County School System’s (DCSS) Budget and Procurement office. The only review of these bills was to determine that the bills were for properties which were actually owned by DCSS. With approximately 165 facilities receiving a minimum of three utility bills monthly, the Finance Department could not be expected to complete anything more than a cursory review. Additionally, an in-depth review and analysis of the electric and natural gas bills requires a level of expertise on billing rates and utility trends that is beyond the level of knowledge and training of an accountant. Finally, given the sheer magnitude of the quantity of bills to be reviewed monthly, one full-time DCSS employee would be necessary to complete only the task of reviewing and analyzing these bills. In 2003, DCSS realized the magnitude of the total dollars, approximately $19,000,000 annually, being expended on utilities for our facilities. A concerted effort was made to determine how best to achieve a financial savings in an area over which DCSS had very little control. A preliminary analysis of the previous utility bills reveled that DCSS would benefit by procuring the outside services of a utility tracking and analysis firm. A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued in June 2003 to procure the services of a firm to complete utility rate optimization, tariff analysis, and billing monitoring. Although there were several firms who could provide the utility tracking and

analysis services, only two firms responded to the RFP. This was due to the fee structure in the RFP which allowed only a minor fixed fee and required the majority of the realized savings to revert back to the Owner, not the utility tracking firm. At the October 2003 Board of Education meeting, Utility Analysis, Inc. (UAI) was approved for a one year contract with an additional two years of renewal. UAI was approved for renewal through October 2009.

Currently, UAI tracks and monitors electrical and natural gas utility bills for the entire school district and analyzes the available rates to reduce monthly costs and to procure the best available tariff rate. Based on actual natural gas and electric metered consumption, UAI calculates the monthly charges and verifies billing accuracy.

UAI also researches and monitors all kilowatt loads to identify schools and/or

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

“Going Green One Switch at a Time”


centers that would benefit by changing billing methods from an older government or school rate to a lower tariff rate, also known as the School Load Management (SLM) tariff. UAI continuously monitors the systems accounts to verify that changes have been made and to assure the tariff rate is the most beneficial to the facility. UAI tracks and documents all on-going savings and reports are generated to document the total savings received and the recommendations for potential future savings.

Actual Savings Realized to Date: Since 2004, DCSS has received a total net utility savings for electric and natural gas billings in the amount of $3,782,367. During this time, UAI has analyzed and determined a necessary rate change on seventy-two (72) facilities and completed the conversion of these billings to the more beneficial billing rates for the system. The current payment agreement with UAI is based on a percentage of actual realized savings by DCSS. • For the first thirty-six (36) months of

savings realized per facility, UAI receives thirty-one percent (31%) of the total savings.

• After this period, UAI receives no

payment and all savings are kept by DCSS.

Of the total savings received to date, UAI’s payment has been $1,157,208. The total net financial benefit DCSS has received is $2,625,260 (Refer to Attachment A, Utility Analysis, Inc. Summary of Savings). The savings are summarized below: • $2,049,576 Due to UAI analyzing

and transferring 68 schools from the older rate to the new SLM tariff

• $ 575, 684 Due to refunds from

electric company for over billing

• $ 200,000 Due to refunds from

natural gas company for over billing

To verify that the savings reported by UAI are accurate, the DCSS Facilities Department completed an in-house analysis of our electrical and natural gas bills. Attachment B recaps the findings from that analysis. The Facilities Department determined that a substantial savings has been realized. Conclusion: DCSS continues to benefit from utility tracking and the assurance of the lowest utility rate pricing possible. Environmental impacts such as the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the current extreme drought conditions in the Southeast cause utility rates to fluctuate and the costs of utility bills to skyrocket beyond the limits of reason. The combination of services and strategies offered by a utility analysis and tracking firm are necessary and beneficial to DCSS. When the current agreement with UAI expires in October 2009, DCSS will issue an RFP to competitively bid these services.

Tracking and Analyzing DCSS’s Utilities


Attachment AAttachment AAttachment AAttachment A

Utilities Analysis Inc. Summary of SavingsUtilities Analysis Inc. Summary of SavingsUtilities Analysis Inc. Summary of SavingsUtilities Analysis Inc. Summary of Savings

2004 2005 2006

Month 2004 kWh Old

Tariff New Tariff

Savings 2005 kWh Old

Tariff New Tariff

Savings 2006 kWh Old

Tariff New Tariff

Savings

January 478,492 $33,193 $16,425 $16,767 3,098,046 $242,435 $171,445 $70,990 3,288,639 $286,964 $214,794 $72,169

February 314,513 $22,083 $10,976 $11,106 2,953,362 $236,498 $162,702 $73,796 4,134,491 $393,104 $282,565 $110,539

March 286,902 $20,835 $12,496 $8,339 2,556,585 $205,359 $149,524 $55,835 5,136,355 $437,957 $350,830 $87,127

April 338,857 $23,484 $12,687 $10,797 3,945,670 $325,077 $233,484 $91,593 5,035,524 $479,373 $338,145 $141,228

May 826,144 $59,287 $50,361 $8,926 4,683,934 $350,767 $253,113 $97,654 6,615,064 $588,820 $432,956 $155,864

June 1,541,989 $121,796 $112,295 $9,501 3,192,745 $268,070 $221,989 $46,081 6,337,210 $551,843 $423,113 $128,730

July 1,690,762 $131,007 $111,625 $19,383 3,206,621 $255,177 $228,871 $26,306 6,029,754 $548,551 $449,976 $98,575

August 1,948,279 $138,636 $153,568 -$14,932 4,077,325 $310,977 $286,780 $24,196 7,292,332 $545,861 $532,007 $13,854

September 2,079,698 $131,326 $134,935 -$3,608 5,415,750 $364,412 $341,423 $22,989 8,600,084 $613,633 $575,027 $38,606

October 5,626,315 $376,857 $335,449 $41,408 5,955,412 $411,499 $356,147 $55,352 6,613,233 $509,920 $434,230 $75,690

November 3,425,487 $248,573 $183,671 $64,902 2,744,821 $232,805 $174,338 $58,468 6,153,767 $521,271 $418,133 $103,138

December 3,764,389 $281,963 $208,387 $73,576 3,441,838 $296,403 $223,053 $73,350 5,022,072 $442,501 $354,738 $87,763

Totals 22,321,827 $1,589,041 $1,342,876 $246,165 45,272,109 $3,499,479 $2,802,868 $696,611 70,258,525 $5,919,798 $4,806,514 $1,113,284


2007 Totals

Month 2007kWh Old

Tariff New Tariff

Savings Monthly Savings

(All Years)

Refund Savings

(All Years)

Savings Not

Charged by UAI

January 5,390,525 $459,325 $366,538 $92,787 $252,714 $179,692 $278,808

February 5,439,461 $460,032 $377,719 $82,313 $277,754 $223,712 $7,597

March 5,091,805 $466,202 $380,787 $85,415 $236,717 $13,958 $7,597

April 4,949,947 $454,834 $371,264 $83,570 $327,188 $27,346 $7,597

May 5,689,504 $487,768 $405,685 $82,083 $344,527 46121 $8,157

June 5,815,057 $485,875 $415,154 $70,721 $255,033 $5,991 $6,553

July 4,585,408 $379,512 $341,144 $38,368 $182,632 $1,201 $4,949

August 6,593,586 $517,375 $557,594 -$40,219 -$17,100 $14,797 $9,184

September 6,554,356 $494,332 $442,615 $51,717 $109,703 $21,509 $31,735

October 4,251,004 $337,257 $301,258 $35,998 $208,449 $18,974 $37,256

November 3,431,811 $293,304 $250,055 $43,249 $269,756 $2,617 $38,314

December 2,989,946 $270,960 $230,342 $40,618 $275,307 $27,709 $38,314

Totals 60,782,410 $5,106,775 $4,440,154 $666,620 $2,722,680 $583,627 $476,060

$3,782,367

$1,157,208

$2,625,160 31%

Total Savings

UAI Charges

DCSS Net

NOTES: 1. “Savings Not Charged by

UAI” contains estimated usage and savings for accounts that have continued to save after UAI’s 36 month shared savings charges have ended. In addition there is $268,000 included from a repeating demand error for which UAI only shared in savings 4 months instead of 8.

2. Savings have occurred on

72 accounts which UAI has changed. Some have been changed to more than one different rate when appropriate.


AttachmeAttachmeAttachmeAttachment Bnt Bnt Bnt B

DeKalb County Schools Analysis of Utility DataDeKalb County Schools Analysis of Utility DataDeKalb County Schools Analysis of Utility DataDeKalb County Schools Analysis of Utility Data

DeKalb County Operations Department has researched all school and center utility bills and has randomly chosen elementary, middle and high school data to verify UAI’s summary of savings.

The following analysis of the above referenced data establishes a pattern of savings beneficial to DCSS.

Elementary

School

Year Electric

1st Qtr (January -

March)

2nd Qtr (April -

June)

3rd Qtr (July -

September)

4th Qtr (October -

December)

Total

Fernbank 2005 Old Rate $1,347.56 $15,504.03 $16,000.60 $32,852.19

New SLM $1,132.59 $12,086.29 $12,305.81 $25,524.69

Savings $214.97 3,417.74 $3,694.78 $7,327.49

2006 Old Rate

$16,949.51 $15,328.44 $16,676.55 $15,891.27 $64,845.77

New SLM

$12,953.23 $11,598.92 $13,721.79 $12,284.86 $50,558.80

Savings $3,996.29 $3,729.52 $2,954.76 $ 3,606.40 $14,286.97

2007 Old Rate

$17,218.35 $14,671.18 $17,696.89 10,978.52 $60,564.94

New SLM $13,599.85 $12,135.22 $14,379.50 $8,628.49 $48,743.06

Savings $3,618.49 $3,535.93 $3,317.38 $2,350.02 $12,821.82

Hambrick 2005 Old Rate $ 3,857.08 $16,535.99 $16,898.06 $37,291.13

New SLM $ 2,964.34 $13,560.98 $ 13,108.28 $ 29,633.60

Savings $ 892.74 $2,975.03 $3,789.77 $ 7,657.54

2006 Old Rate

$13,870.85 $ 16,904.23 $ 17,378.63 $ 16,726.94 $64,880.65

New SLM

$10,971.85 $ 13,012.84 $14,561.60 $ 12,971.70 $ 51,517.99

Savings $2,898.99 $ 3,891.40 $ 2,817.04 $3,758.25 $13,365.68

2007 Old Rate

$15,446.79 $17,755.87 $ 21,570.43 $ 6,806.73 $ 61,579.82

New SLM $12,101.83 $ 14,113.46 $17,757.37 $ 5,161.01 $ 49,133.67

Savings $ 3,344.97 $ 3,642.41 $ 3,813.07 $1,645.71 $12,446.16


Attachment BAttachment BAttachment BAttachment B continued


Elementary

School

Year Electric

1st Qtr (January -

March)

2nd Qtr (April -

June)

3rd Qtr (July -

September)

4th Qtr (October -

December) Total

Kingsley 2005 Old Rate

$14,941.58 $15,147.65 $ 19,311.17 $16,553.03 $65,953.43

New SLM $8,577.55 $12,217.56 $27,262.35 $12,678.72 $60,736.18

Savings $6,374.02 $2,930.10 $(7,951.17) $3,874.32 $5,227.27

2006 Old Rate

$10,754.23 $17,355.66 $20,164.06 $17,247.29 $65,521.24

New SLM $9,074.85 $13,890.01 $28,317.31 $12,883.88 $64,166.05

Savings $5,679.39 $3,465.64 $(8,153.26) $4,363.41 $5,355.18

2007 Old Rate

$17,167.86 $17,803.26 $34,971.12

New SLM $11,316.95 $15,162.60 $26,479.55

Savings $ 5,850.91 $2,640.67 $8,491.58

Livsey 2005 Old Rate

$11,091.25 $10,510.68 $13,281.09 $12,412.90 $47,295.92

New SLM $6,646.36 $8,826.03 $18,672.89 $8,998.89 $43,144.17

Savings $4,444.90 $1,684.64 $(5,391.80) $3,414.01 $4,151.75

2006 Old Rate

$11,953.52 $11,845.36 $15,015.88 $13,316.55 $52,131.31

New SLM $8,034.95 $11,027.43 $20,803.59 $9,221.32 $49,087.29

Savings $5,173.57 $817.92 $(5,787.72) $4,095.23 $4,299.00

2007 Old Rate

$13,307.21 $13,324.44 $15,756.77 $5,109.91 $47,498.33

New SLM $ 9,081.41 $7,726.25 $10,950.26 $3,971.31 $31,729.23

Savings $4,225.80 $2,598.20 $1,896.50 $1,138.60 $9,859.10




Middle School

Year Electric 1st Qtr

(January -

March)

2nd Qtr (April -

June)

3rd Qtr (July -

September)

4th Qtr (October -

December) Total

Chapel Hill 2005 Old Rate $ -

New SLM $ -

Savings $ -

2006 Old Rate $20,476.73

$33,988.56 $43,005.81 $32,761.53 $130,232.63

New SLM $18,644.00

$33,210.00 $45,834.00 $31,012.00 $128,700.00

Savings $1,832.73 $778.56 $(2,828.19) $1,749.53 $1,532.63

2007 Old Rate $32,193.89

$36,060.56 $29,489.35 $97,743.80

New SLM $30,943.00 $34,289.00 $39,023.00 $104,255.00

Savings $1,250.89 $1,771.56 $(9,533.65) $(6,511.20)

Stone Mountain

2005 Old Rate $27,131.20

$22,042.67 $33,830.68 $ 27,220.52 $110,225.07

New SLM $17,371.81

$18,718.32 $45,632.67 $ 22,096.78 $ 103,819.58

Savings $9,759.39 $3,324.36

$(11,802.00) $ 5,123.72 $ 6,405.47

2006 Old Rate $25,192.42

$25,452.30 $37,662.02 $ 33,791.52 $ 122,098.26

New SLM $17,334.58

$21,152.35 $44,778.00 $22,207.00 $ 105,471.93

Savings $7,857.83 $4,299.96 $ (7,115.98) $11,584.52 $16,626.33

2007 Old Rate $33,748.41

$37,512.69 $25,933.51 $97,194.61

New SLM $22,053.00 $28,500.00 $32,756.00 $83,309.00

Savings $11,695.41 $9,012.69 $(6,822.49) $13,885.61




High School & Centers

Year Electric 1st Qtr

(January -

March)

2nd Qtr (April -

June)

3rd Qtr (July -

September)

4th Qtr (October -

December) Total

Freeman 2005 Old Rate $ -

Building A New SLM $ -

Savings $ -

2006 Old Rate $ 20,110.72 $33,348.96 $ 38,286.75 $ 32,652.20 $ 124,398.63

New SLM $ 18,808.00 $32,747.00 $ 39,211.00 $ 30,711.00 $ 121,477.00

Savings $ 1,302.72 $ 601.96 $ (927.25) $ 1,941.20 $ 2,918.63

2007 Old Rate $ 34,246.40 $37,872.88 $ 28,558.92 $ 100,678.20

New SLM $ 31,956.00 $36,420.00 $ 31,192.00 $ 99,568.00

Savings $ 2,290.40 $ 1,452.88 $ (2,633.08) $ 1,110.20

Dunwoody HS 2005 Old Rate $ -

New SLM $ -

Savings $ -

2006 Old Rate $ 26,762.96 $46,143.45 $ 55,136.65 $ 47,660.34 $ 175,703.40

New SLM $ 24,859.00 $43,151.00 $ 60,139.00 $ 43,159.00 $ 171,308.00

Savings $ 1,903.96 $ 2,992.45 $ (5,002.35) $ 4,501.34 $ 4,395.40

2007 Old Rate $ 44,981.42 $53,475.49 $ 38,419.62 $ 136,876.53

New SLM $ 41,112.00 $50,075.00 $ 48,238.00 $ 139,425.00

Savings $ 3,869.42 $ 3,399.49 $ (9,818.38)

$ (2,549.47)

William Bradley Bryant

2005 Old Rate $ 4,192.63 $ 20,864.36 $ 17,581.32 $ 42,638.31

New SLM $ 3,510.17 $ 18,030.07 $ 13,579.80 $ 35,120.04

Savings $ 682.46 $ 2,834.29 $ 4,007.53 $ 7,524.28

2006 Old Rate $ 16,922.31 $18,006.20 $ 23,439.65 $ 20,323.38 $ 78,691.54

New SLM $ 12,958.19 $14,267.46 $ 19,925.76 $ 15,534.66 $ 62,686.07

Savings $ 3,964.13 $ 3,738.74 $ 3,513.89 $ 4,788.72 $ 16,005.48

2007 Old Rate $ 20,126.13 $19,012.37 $ 25,149.31 $ 8,308.08 $ 72,595.89

New SLM $ 15,383.57 $17,780.60 $ 21,173.46 $ 7,383.89 $ 61,721.52

Savings $ 4,742.56 $ 4,230.78 $ 3,975.85 $ 924.19 $ 13,873.38



DeKalb County SchDeKalb County SchDeKalb County SchDeKalb County Schools Analysis of Utility Dataools Analysis of Utility Dataools Analysis of Utility Dataools Analysis of Utility Data

Elementary

School Year January February March April

May June July August September October November December Annual Total

Overall Total

Fernbank 2005 $144.57 $154.48 $133.36 $123.05 $85.70 $62.23 - - $83.80 $79.62 $175.00 $215.12 $1,256.93

2006 $183.41 $186.61 $146.63 $80.69 $65.44 $61.28 $58.21 $59.19 $56.63 $65.73 $120.14 $123.52 $1,207.48

2007 $114.31 $182.28 - $83.96 - - $61.81 $58.38 - $68.03 $107.15 $133.08 $809.00

$ 3,273.41

Kingsley 2005 $2,757.99 $3,188.39 $2,919.94 $2,525.68 $809.50 $658.74 - - $682.20 $867.05 $854.72 $2,913.14 $18,177.35

2006 $6,662.71 $3,827.41 $2,753.16 $1,843.85 $705.76 $562.01 $494.19 $530.53 $800.72 $757.96 $1,843.52 $3,345.42 $24,127.24 2007 $3,072.00 $3,909.13 - $921.79 - - $674.73 $731.54 - $724.46 $1,170.54 $2,097.33 $13,301.52

$ 55,606.11

Kittredge 2005 $902.52 $1,489.80 $1,000.33 $1,313.85 $274.17 $247.86 - - $267.83 $322.61 $359.75 $5,901.80 $12,080.52

2006 $1,936.21 $1,530.87 $1,627.17 $472.74 $265.68 $247.13 $247.80 $248.16 $296.97 $482.90 $3,647.24 $1,979.75 $12,982.62

2007 $1,159.74 $1,587.21 - $681.60 - - $296.78 $297.69 - $274.31 $335.25 $916.43 $5,549.01 $ 30,612.15

Livsey 2005 $3,058.62 $2,537.68 $2,283.39 $792.48 $560.13 - - $739.53 - $1,017.01 $1,039.45 $2,337.64 $14,365.93

2006 $6,912.99 $3,788.81 $3,229.21 $1,772.76 $723.34 $653.20 $595.40 $579.59 $679.63 $660.61 $1,760.06 $2,702.93 $24,058.53

2007 $1,676.57 $3,368.66 - $1,149.80 - - $612.33 $587.88 - $541.09 $592.18 $2,433.61 $10,962.12

$ 49,386.58

Marbut Theme 2005 $2,030.93 $2,686.02 $1,575.04 $1,193.41 $827.51 $350.98 - - $800.56 $867.51 $1,540.93 $3,176.51 $15,049.40

2006 $2,611.49 $3,417.86 $1,451.21 $1,111.92 $800.80 $455.43 $482.27 $503.04 $636.75 $865.19 $1,087.25 $1,302.75 $14,725.96

2007 $1,100.35 $904.87 - - $6,920.58 - - $823.59 - $716.90 $1,908.15 $2,615.65 $14,990.09

$ 44,765.45

Smoke Rise 2005 $2,707.71 - $4,117.80 $963.93 $733.74 - - - $772.46 $916.50 $1,048.23 $3,476.79 $14,737.16

2006 $4,186.49 $3,425.02 $3,565.57 $2,002.66 $731.84 $586.06 $443.20 $416.38 - $641.22 $1,596.57 $3,020.64 $20,615.65

2007 $2,361.93 $3,457.66 - $1,017.59 - - $543.14 $546.59 - $792.50 $1,290.50 $1,587.07 $11,596.98 $ 46,949.79

Three Year Totals $43,580.54 $39,642.76 $24,802.81 $18,051.76 $13,504.19 $3,884.92 $4,509.86 $6,122.09 $5,077.55 $10,661.20 $20,476.63 $40,279.18 $230,593.49 Three Year Average $2,421.14 $2,202.38 $1,377.93 $1,002.88 $750.23 $215.83 $250.55 $340.12 $282.09 $592.29 $1,137.59 $2,237.73 $12,810.75 Three Year Monthly Average $14,526.85 $13,214.25 $8,267.60 $6,017.25 $4,501.40 $1,294.97 $1,503.29 $2,040.70 $1,692.52 $3,553.73 $6,825.54 $13,426.39 $76,864.50

Gas Analysis




Middle

School Year January February March April May June July August September October November December Annual

Total Overall Total

Bethune 2005 $2,491.35 $2,567.28 $2,024.99 $1,410.91 $899.56 $671.72 - - $675.50 $763.79 $868.88 $2,787.20 $15,161.18

2006 $3,827.91 $2,867.15 $1,513.82 $927.85 $575.29 $404.02 $351.49 $377.96 - $618.61 $1,180.32 $1,086.48 $13,730.90

2007 $1,995.04 $4,343.87 - $1,001.32 - - $386.76 $386.30 - $770.89 $766.45 $1,917.51 $11,568.14 $40,460.22

Chamblee 2005 $3,187.39 $3,548.20 $3,040.64 $2,688.21 $1,069.44 $840.57 - - $1,124.33 $1,391.40 $1,540.48 $3,630.53 $22,061.19

2006 $5,557.38 $3,825.98 $2,363.60 $1,808.36 $753.28 $571.00 $874.84 $404.80 $895.57 -$156.31 $619.51 $1,109.35 $18,627.36

2007 $761.79 $2,480.22 - -$1,905.49 - - $538.96 $541.37 - $342.36 $686.40 $843.65 $4,289.26

$44,977.81

Freedom 2005 $3,238.89 $3,240.46 $3,215.39 $1,807.34 $879.56 $674.04 - - $871.36 $799.18 $1,884.88 $4,052.04 $20,663.14

2006 $4,545.56 $3,971.82 $2,627.21 $1,693.90 $766.49 $634.04 $434.38 $617.59 - $856.74 $1,763.30 $3,327.48 $21,238.51

2007 $2,967.41 $3,190.44 - $1,416.06 - - $636.92 $691.55 - $877.36 $1,524.90 $2,533.29 $13,837.93

$55,739.58

Peachtree 2005 $3,926.89 $5,583.77 $3,672.11 $2,474.38 $1,255.99 $1,031.24 - - $1,068.84 $1,480.38 $1,350.05 $8,288.97 $30,132.62

2006 $8,774.18 $5,321.10 $4,811.02 $2,413.78 $1,131.76 $882.91 $693.99 $691.12 $786.44 $1,044.39 $2,600.89 $5,833.89 $34,985.47

2007 $4,877.89 $6,158.79 - $1,670.91 - - - - - - - - $12,707.59

$77,825.68

Shamrock 2005 $5,561.27 $4,768.60 $4,127.84 $1,718.59 $1,300.36 - - $1,001.77 $1,482.27 $1,786.38 $3,148.82 $9,518.17 $34,414.07

2006 $7,291.96 $5,879.80 $4,013.10 - $1,421.33 $1,287.28 $821.55 $858.61 $1,300.73 $1,344.50 $1,580.15 $4,865.19 $30,664.20

2007 $4,677.01 $6,641.21 - $2,500.08 - - $1,114.44 $1,106.45 - $1,460.33 $1,473.71 $2,672.70 $21,645.93

$86,724.20

Three Year Totals $63,681.92 $64,388.69 $31,409.72 $21,626.20 $10,053.06 $6,996.82 $5,853.33 $6,677.52 $8,205.04 $13,380.00 $20,988.74 $52,466.45 $305,727.49 Three Year Average $3,537.88 $3,577.15 $1,744.98 $1,201.46 $558.50 $388.71 $325.19 $370.97 $455.84 $743.33 $1,166.04 $2,914.80 $16,984.86 Three Year Monthly Average $21,227.31 $21,462.90 $10,469.91 $7,208.73 $3,351.02 $2,332.27 $1,951.11 $2,225.84 $2,735.01 $4,460.00 $6,996.25 $17,488.82 $101,909.16



DeKalb CoDeKalb CoDeKalb CoDeKalb County Schools Analysis of Utility Dataunty Schools Analysis of Utility Dataunty Schools Analysis of Utility Dataunty Schools Analysis of Utility Data

High

School Year January February March April May June July August September October November December

Annual Total

Overall Total

Avondale 2005 $8,828.04 $10,053.51 $8,413.29 $3,452.16 $2,166.71 $1,757.01 - - $2,321.71 $2,587.87 $5,656.81 $17,068.02 $62,305.13

2006 $15,380.48 $10,110.16 $5,888.88 $3,155.91 $1,785.32 $1,411.51 $1,388.86 $1,513.79 $1,770.43 $2,042.86 $4,874.45 - $49,322.65

2007 $12,593.80 $10,622.14 - $2,135.70 - - - $3,158.54 - $2,334.45 $4,111.07 $5,669.43 $40,625.13

$152,252.91

Chamblee 2005 - - $7,661.87 $6,406.38 $4,427.49 $3,199.85 - - $3,702.55 $5,309.21 - - $30,707.35

2006 $13,223.73 $13,258.14 $7,274.06 $4,365.35 $4,903.04 $2,285.03 $1,882.30 $2,345.59 - $3,827.48 $6,625.70 $10,061.35 $70,051.77

2007 $7,071.59 $12,077.01 - - $4,143.84 - $2,450.60 $3,008.91 - $3,600.78 $5,176.50 $6,986.19 $44,515.42

$145,274.54

Dunwoody 2005 $6,028.92 $7,702.36 $4,414.88 $2,649.37 $1,853.81 $1,711.06 - - $2,543.50 $2,937.39 $3,120.68 $8,861.56 $41,823.53

2006 $10,141.08 $5,939.56 $4,156.58 $2,508.43 $1,835.78 $1,498.11 $1,429.18 $1,543.04 $1,377.31 $1,329.14 $2,209.68 $7,611.18 $41,579.07

2007 $5,319.49 - $7,720.62 $1,432.60 - - - $1,986.85 - $1,810.53 $3,116.45 $5,162.18 $26,548.72

$109,951.32

Miller Grove 2005 $3,364.81 $5,405.06 $3,046.34 $1,928.05 $1,143.16 $593.54 - - $1,233.48 $1,341.40 $1,683.22 $4,091.01 $23,830.07

2006 $13,750.99 $14,165.13 $2,030.52 $1,185.35 $1,118.62 $629.32 $582.03 $796.38 - $963.63 $1,264.77 $2,509.74 $38,996.48

2007 $2,341.23 $3,977.50 - $1,105.20 - - $620.55 $840.15 - $1,025.46 $1,929.84 $2,292.96 $14,132.89

$76,959.44

Stephenson 2005 $3,110.30 $3,619.73 $2,920.98 $2,085.09 $1,351.05 - - $665.16 $831.92 - $1,416.19 $2,326.15 $18,326.57

2006 $5,542.77 $4,565.30 $7,366.07 $3,826.82 $2,600.47 $1,221.36 $617.87 $609.27 $537.18 $2,675.59 $2,263.01 $3,824.40 $35,650.11

2007 $2,985.80 $7,143.72 - $2,227.81 - - $846.97 $849.66 - $1,764.76 $2,002.77 $3,261.75 $21,083.24

$75,059.92

Three Year Total $130,910.34 $130,102.22 $71,364.00 $45,672.95 $30,680.31 $16,639.06 $11,769.47 $19,543.18 $17,053.09 $38,010.55 $52,447.39 $97,214.74 $661,407.29 Three Year Average $7,272.80 $7,227.90 $3,964.67 $2,537.39 $1,704.46 $924.39 $653.86 $1,085.73 $947.39 $2,111.70 $2,913.74 $5,400.82 $36,744.85

Three Year Monthly Average $43,636.78 $43,367.41 $23,788.00 $15,224.32 $10,226.77 $5,546.35 $3,923.16 $6,514.39 $5,684.36 $12,670.18 $17,482.46 $32,404.91 $220,469.10




Centers Year January February March April May June July August September October November December Annual Total

Overall Total

Dekalb 2005 $4,532.64 $5,401.07 $4,107.97 $2,310.20 $632.31 $547.54 - - $823.57

$1,069.68 $1,484.42 $8,339.28 $29,248.68

Technology 2006 $8,176.00 $5,458.43 $2,992.81 $1,803.30 $791.42 $767.19 $789.67 $767.54 $750.86 $740.79 $2,704.54 $4,125.61 $29,868.16

North 2007 $3,552.55 - $6,251.29 $782.08 - - $678.58 $855.61 - $850.06 $4,039.98 - $17,010.15

$76,126.99

Dekalb 2005 $3,021.68 $3,481.23 $2,611.96 $536.18 $488.68 - - $432.71 $485.77 $543.94 $2,933.79 $4,672.24 $19,208.18

Technology 2006 $4,348.09 - $3,460.21 $2,316.10 $707.05 $429.14 $416.36 $414.58 $423.68 $428.73 $902.92 $2,158.10 $16,004.96

South 2007 $1,936.51 $3,744.24 - $905.24 - - $425.15 $419.63 - $580.45 $602.57 $2,173.06 $10,786.85

$45,999.99

Sam A. 2005 $14,551.8

5 $15,485.2

3 $13,723.4

0 $5,819.72 $3,594.0

1 - - $2,449.4

3 $2,771.25 $6,472.7

1 $18,446.1

4 $30,270.2

0 $113,583.94

Moss 2006 $31,877.6

4 - $12,905.9

6 $11,071.3

4 $3,859.8

6 $2,897.9

1 $2,378.2

3 $2,312.4

5 $2,788.92 $2,952.3

4 $9,168.43 $15,533.4

2 $97,746.50

Service 2007 $13,913.4

9 $19,460.9

0 - $7,830.11 - - $3,063.7

0 $2,973.5

0 - $2,756.5

9 $5,729.30 $11,979.1

6 $67,706.75

Center $279,037.19

Three Year Total $136,820.0

3 $103,626.4

1 $73,806.27 $51,135.97 $22,004.5

6 $11,112.5

3 $12,328.7

1 $18,225.

58 $14,675.81 $31,177.1

7 $66,408.30 $117,056.8

0 $658,378.12

Three Year Average $7,601.11 $5,757.02 $4,100.35 $2,840.89 $1,222.48 $617.36 $684.93 $1,012.5

3 $815.32 $1,732.07 $3,689.35 $6,503.16 $36,576.56

Three Year Monthly Average $45,606.68 $34,542.14 $24,602.09 $17,045.32 $7,334.85 $3,704.18 $4,109.57

$6,075.19 $4,891.94

$10,392.39 $22,136.10 $39,018.93 $219,459.37


I. The Current Water Crisis

Across the country, our growing population is putting stress on available water supplies. Between 1950 and 2000, the U.S. population has nearly doubled. However, in that same period, public demand for water has more than tripled. Americans now use an average of 100 gallons of water each day. This increased demand has put additional stress on water supplies and distribution systems, threatening both human health and the environment. A recent government survey showed at least 36 states are anticipating water shortages by 2013. If U.S. businesses and homes installed water-efficient fixtures, then the country would save more than 3 trillion gallons of water and more than $18 billion dollars per year. In addition, the use of more water efficient fixtures would save approximately 100 million kWh of electricity per year and 80,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions. Closer to home, the State of Georgia is experiencing its second drought in the past 10 years. Georgia previously endured a major drought in the years of 1998-2002, and is now in the third year of this current drought. The area north and west of the Chattahoochee River is in an exceptional drought. Extreme drought conditions remain in the upper and middle Flint River basin, the upper and middle Oconee River basin, and the upper and middle Savannah River basin (Refer to Attachment “A”). South-central and southeast Georgia are classified as being in abnormally dry to moderate drought conditions. There is still a very high probability that drought conditions will intensify thanks to a moderate to strong La Niña climate pattern. La Niña conditions usually bring a warmer and drier cool season (October through March) to central and south Georgia. With the arrival of La Niña, there is a good chance that drought conditions will continue and possibly worsen throughout the winter and into next spring. There is a high probability that Georgia therefore will experience temperatures above normal and rainfall below normal through spring. If below normal rainfall occurs during the cool season, then the moisture recharge of the groundwater, soils, ponds and reservoirs will be limited.

If we do not receive enough rain during the cool season, then we will need strong conservation efforts during the summer to protect the water supply. In addition, Georgia’s population has grown to over eight million people and it is predicted to grow at a rate of 1.3 million every decade. The reservoirs that supply Georgia are currently at 40% of their capacity. Lake Lanier, the state’s largest reservoir only has a 120 day supply of consumable water available. The outlook isn’t promising. Research indicates that Lake Lanier will not be able to keep up with this growth after 2030 without reducing demand or adding new water supplies. The Governor of Georgia has mandated that all state agencies cut their water usage by a minimum of 10%, and the state legislator is considering mandatory laws requiring the retrofitting of low flow water fixtures and other water conservation measures. Locally, in a proactive effort, the DeKalb County Government has implemented measures to conserve water. Since August 2007, the DeKalb County Department of Watershed Management has imposed outdoor water restrictions, adopted a toilet retrofit rebate program, implemented a customer education program, and restructured ordinances to meet the Governor’s mandate in reducing water usage. In an effort to meet our goal of healthy and safe learning environments, the DeKalb County School System (DCSS) has developed the following district wide water conservation program. It encompasses a three prong approach of education, maintenance, and replacement.


II. The Impact of DCSS There are four major areas in which water is utilized in our schools and centers: restrooms, cooling and heating systems, kitchens, and landscaping. Restrooms and HVAC systems account for over 65% of our water usage.

In 2007, DCSS used over 1 billion gallons of water at a cost of $1.7 million. An analysis of water usage was done for a random sampling of 21 DCSS schools and centers. Over the past three years, the average monthly water bill has increased by approximately $1,000, or 21%. (Refer to Attachment “B”, Average

Average Water Usage at

Schools

Kitchen

10%

HVAC

20%

Landsape

25%

Restroom

45%

III. DCSS’s Water Conservation Plan Water conservation requires two distinct areas of change: technical and human. Implementing the recommended plan for water conservation requires new policies and new responsibilities for all stakeholders. A successful water conservation plan will follow a logical sequence of events and require implementation in phases. It starts with common sense items that require little to no capital outlay, and it ends with items that require a paradigm shift or have a large first cost outlay. Life-cycle analysis is the key to evaluating which water conservation options will be implemented. The DCSS Water Conservation Plan is based on the evaluation of the currently available water conservation products. The primary components of the plan are education and the retrofitting or replacement of existing equipment to make it more efficient. An unexpected benefit of using less water is the reduction in the need for electricity to heat, cool, treat, or move water, thereby cutting energy use. Research indicates that installing water flow restrictors on all urinals, toilet bowls and installing faucet aerators on all faucets has a potential water saving of 20% or more. The installation of basin heaters on all HVAC cooling towers will save approximately 240,000 gallons of water per year.

water cost from 2005 to 2007). This amounts to a district-wide increase of approximately $155,000 or 21%.


Page 20 of 98

By replacing the faucet head screen, air will be added to the water stream which decreases the flow of water, but increases the effectiveness of the water flow. Even though the aerators allow less water to flow through the faucet, most users do not notice a significant change in the water flow. High-efficiency aerators can reduce the amount of water used by up to 17.2 gallons of water per faucet per day. The installation of the restrictor valves on all toilet bowls and urinals will save water by reducing the diameter of the supply pipe. The water pressure will remain at its original level while reducing the quantity of water needed. Adding a basin heater to every cooling tower will save approximately 240,000 gallons of water per year. Currently, cooling towers are drained when the HVAC systems are changed from air conditioning to heat and every time the temperature drops below freezing. The installation of basin heaters will eliminate the need to drain the cooling towers, saving both water and man hours. It is estimated that the installation of basin heaters will save over a 1,000 man hours or $35,000 annually. According to Green Buildings, http://whygreenbuildings.com/green_building_design_guide/ , the annual water savings from retrofitting one toilet from an old standard toilet fixture to a new low flush toilet is 3,974.4 gallons per student per school year. This equates to an average monetary savings per student of $6.92 per year. DCSS’s student enrollment is approximately 100,000 which translates into a potential savings of $692,000 annually.

ULTRA-LOW FLUSH TOILET

STANDARD 7GPF TOILET

4 flushes per day X 1 student

4 flushes per day x 1.6 gallons per flush

=6.4 gallons per day X 184 day school year

4 flushes per day X 1 student

4 flushes per day x 7.0 gallons per flush

= 28 gallons per day X 184 day school year

= 1,177.6 gallons per school year per student = 5,152. gallons per school year per student

IV. Water Conservation Plan Implementation The DCSS Water Conservation Plan is two fold in scope and function. The plan starts with education. Educational opportunities will be provided for all stakeholders to increase their awareness of the water supply and water conservation. The second stage of the Plan is the implementation of the physical plant improvements. All schools will be retrofitted with low flow fixtures, water conservation accessories, and basin heaters for HVAC chillers. The Plan is designed to be implemented in four phases.

Phase I (SY 2008-09) Educate Stakeholders and Implement Maintenance Protocol

Phase II (SY 2008-09) Install faucet aerators and restrictor valves in 50% of the existing schools and basin heaters in all HVAC Cooling Towers

(Refer to Attachment B)

Phase III (SY 2009-10) Install faucet aerators and restrictor valves in all remaining schools (Refer to Attachment B)

Phase IV (SY 2009-2019) Retrofit all schools with low flow plumbing fixtures.


Page 21 of 98

A. Phase I (School Year 2008-2009)

Phase I starts with education. Changing the attitudes and behaviors of all stakeholders to support the districts initiatives is crucial. While changing behavior takes time, a study by the Center for Watershed Protection shows that behavioral changes are aided by educating children. The DeKalb County School System is in a unique position to disseminate water conservation information to school age children and their families. Existing DCSS environmental curricula will be supported. DCSS District specific information will be integrated into the curricula to inform the students of the direct impact to their surroundings. In addition, teachers will be encouraged to utilize programs like Georgia’s Project Wet, Water Education for Teachers. (Refer to Attachment C).

Environmental curricula will be added at all locations where it does not currently exist. If employees are actively engaged in the water reduction efforts, behavior and equipment modifications will be more successful in their reduction of water consumption.

All schools and centers maintenance and custodial staff will complete a systematic program of leak detection and repair that will prevent future water waste. School based custodial crews will thoroughly check for leaks and procure the required repairs in the following locations:

o Restrooms and shower facilities o Kitchen and food-preparation areas o Wash down areas and janitor closets o Water lines and water delivery devices o Landscape irrigation systems o Swimming Pools

In a proactive measure, schools and centers will be instructed to comply with the following guidelines:

o Turn off all outside water sources: Irrigation systems & outside spigots o Turn off water in areas not in use o Do not back wash or replace water in swimming pools o Embrace the concept of Dry Cleanup (Dry cleanup requires using brooms,

brushes, vacuums, squeegees, scrapers, and other utensils to clean material before water is used. By collecting the majority of wastes, residues, or contaminants in a dry form, large volumes of water and wastewater can be eliminated. The bulk of solid materials can be more efficiently removed in dry form before water is introduced for secondary washing.)


Page 22 of 98

All and center food service staff will be instructed to conserve water utilizing the following procedures:

o Pre-soak utensils and dishes rather than using running water o Adjust ice making machines to dispense only the needed amount o Use plastic, Styrofoam, or cardboard products in all schools eliminating the need to wash trays, utensils, dishes etc. o Clean kitchen floors using green cleaning materials schools

Xeriscaping is the concept of landscaping in ways that do not require supplemental irrigation. It is promoted in areas that do not have easily accessible supplies of fresh water. The word Xeriscaping was coined by combining xeros (Greek for "dry") with landscape. Plants whose natural requirements are appropriate to the local climate are emphasized, and care is taken to avoid losing water to evaporation and run-off. The seven principles of Xeriscaping are: Planning & Design; Soil Analysis; Appropriate Plant Selection; Practical Turf Areas; Efficient Irrigation; Use of Mulches; and Appropriate Maintenance. Our Grounds Department will institute Xeriscaping concepts in their maintenance practice by the following ways:

o Using Drought-tolerant plant species (often native varieties), and mulch ground cover to reduce irrigation needs.

o Minimizing the amount of grass on-site by planting ground covers such as clover, wild strawberry, thyme, or yarrow.

o Installing centipede, fescue, or buffalo grass, which are suitable for the southeastern climate.

o Turning off all outside water sources such as Irrigation systems and outside spigots

o Turning off water in areas not in use.

B. Phase II (School Year 2008-2009)

Phase II consists of the installation of aerators on all faucets and valve restrictors on all urinals and toilet bowls. Also during this phase basin heaters will be installed on all Cooling Towers. The installation will take approximately eighteen to twenty-four months.

C. Phase III (School Year 2009-2010)

Phase III will be the completion of the installation of valve restrictors and aerators at all schools and centers not included in Phase I. This process will be scheduled during normal routine maintenance visits and will take thirty (30) working days to complete.

D. Phase IV (School Year 2009-2019)

The Phase IV plan will replace all toilets and urinals in all facilities that currently do not meet water conservation mandates. Recently built schools or those under renovation will not need to be retrofitted. Phase IV is a long term plan that begins in SY 2009 and ends in SY 2019. Phase IV is scheduled over a ten year cycle.


Page 23 of 98

V. PROJECTED FINANCIAL IMPACT The DeKalb County School System’s Water Conservation Plan will have an estimated yearly savings of 330 million gallons of water and $300,000 in SY 2008-09. By SY 2018-2019, the estimated annual savings will increase to approximately 700 million gallons of water and $692,000. In addition, there will be a substantial savings of over 960 HVAC labor payroll hours per annum due to the installation of basin heaters. Phase I is scheduled for SY 2008-09 and will have little, if any, need for capital outlay on the part of the school district. This Phase will not require any additional personnel or maintenance materials. Phase II will also be implemented in SY 2008-09. Phase II calls for the installation of Faucet Aerators, and restrictor valves in 50% of the schools in the system and the installation of Basin Heaters on all Cooling Towers. The estimated cost of installing faucet aerators and restrictor valves for the schools in Phase II is $181,600. The estimated cost of installing basin heaters is $100,000. (Refer to Attachment D, Water Conservation Plan.) The total capital outlay for Phase II is $281,600. Phase III encompasses the SY 2009-10. It involves the installation of faucet aerators and restrictor valves in the schools and centers not modified in Phase I (Refer to Attachment D, Water Conservation Plan). The estimated cost for faucet aerators and restrictor valves for Phase III is $181,600. The final phase of the plan replaces all toilets and urinals in all facilities that currently do not meet water conservation mandates. The projected cost of Phase IV will be $9,532,600 over the ten year period. (Refer to Attachment E, Toilet Bowls & Waterless Urinals and Attachment D, Water Conservation Plan). Approximately $1,000,000 will need to be added to the budget during the 2009-2010 School Year to the 2011-2012 School Year for the initial capital outlay to begin the retrofitting process. By the 2012-2013 School year, the anticipated annual savings will offset the annual cost of the installation.


Page 24 of 98

Attachment A

Georgia Drought – Quick Facts

State of Georgia Under Historic Drought Conditions - Strict Drought Response Necessary

New Drought Resource for Georgians Launches

Understanding Drought Brochure

Newsletter for Teachers on Drought from Georgia Project WET (Water Education for Teachers)

How the State Determines Drought Responses - Scientists at EPD monitor many indicators of moisture in the state to help determine if a "drought response" is necessary. The data and information to help determine if drought response is needed comes from EPD monitoring stations, the state climatologist, the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the National Weather Service and others. The indicators include:

• groundwater levels,

• stream flows,

• reservoir levels,

• rainfall in the past 3,

6, and 9 months,

• expected rainfall in

the next 90 days,

and

• water use patterns across the state.

Based on the information provided from these sources, the EPD Director, with the help from a diverse group of advisors, makes a decision to (or not to) declare advanced levels of drought response. Increased levels (1 to 4) indicate increased levels of drought response (see the State Drought Management Plan for details).

For information about current drought indicators, review this presentation prepared for the Drought Response Committee meeting held on September 28, 2007.

For more information related to drought in Georgia, visit the University of Georgia College of Agriculture and Environmental Services Georgia Drought website or the United States Geological Survey WaterWatch website.


Page 25 of 98

9


Page 26 of 98

What is Drought?

Other Resources

El Niño Resources Climate Prediction Center’s El Niño/La Niña Home Page

NOAA/PMEL/TAO’s El Niño Theme Page Climate Diagnostics Center’s El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Information

El Niño, La Niña and the Western U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii USA Today’s Resources: El Niño and La Niña

North American Climate Patterns Associated with El Niño-Southern Oscillation Ocean Planet

Climate Change Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC consists of a panel of

scientists from more than 50 countries that study climate change and assess its potential impacts. The World Meteorological Organization’s Statements on the Status of the Global Climate

United Nations Environment Program. This site contains a variety of information related to the environment and sustainable development, including issues involving climate change.

Environmental and Societal Impacts Group (ESIG). ESIG focuses on the interactions between human activities and the environment.

Climate Impacts Group (CIG) Information Gateway. CIG has been developing an integrated assessment of climate impacts on the Pacific Northwest.

Impact of Climate Change and Land Use in the Southwestern United States, an on-line conference sponsored in summer of 1997 by the U.S. Geological Survey

The Dust Bowl Dust Storms and Their Damage Photos from the collection of the Wind Erosion Research

Unit of USDA’s Agricultural Research Service at Kansas State University. The Dust Bowl (photos) A collection of 20 photos for sale from The Social Studies Web. American Memory from the Library of Congress A multi-format look at daily life in Farm

Security Administration migrant work camps in central California, 1940 and 1941. Weedpatch Camp The story of the Arvin Federal Government Camp, immortalized as

“Weedpatch Camp” in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath. Dust Bowl footage A short film clip of a dust storm during the 1930s. From the website of the

USDA/ARS Wind Erosion Research Unit at Kansas State University. Surviving the Dust Bowl The website of the 1998 Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) film “Surviving the Dust Bowl”. Provides a good background on the people and events of the

1930s Dust Bowl. 1930s Dust Bowl Excerpts from “The Dust Bowl, Men, Dirt and Depression” by Paul Bonnifield.

On the Cimarron Heritage Center (Boise City, Oklahoma) website. Woody Guthrie Dust Bowl Ballads Discussion and analysis of Guthrie’s “Dust Bowl Ballads”

recording.


Page 27 of 98

© 2006 National Drought Mitigation Center

What is Drought?

Other Resources (cont.)

America from the Great Depression to World War II Photos from the Farm Security Administration—Office of War Information Collection, 1935–1945.

The Plow that Broke the Plains The story behind the 1936 documentary made for the Farm Security Administration on the destruction and suffering associated with drought in the early 1930s.



Page 28 of 98

Understanding Your Risk and Impacts

Drought Impacts and Vulnerability

Drought risk is based on a combination of the frequency, severity, and spatial extent of drought (the physical nature of drought) and the degree to which a population or activity is vulnerable to the effects of drought. The degree of a region’s vulnerability depends on the environmental and social characteristics of the region and is measured by their ability to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover from drought.

Society’s vulnerability to drought is determined by a wide range of factors, both physical and social, such as demographic trends and geographic characteristics. People and activities will be affected in different ways by different hazards (see, for example, a comparison of droughts, floods, and hurricanes). Understanding and reducing these vulnerabilities is essential in preparing for and dealing with drought.

This page provides steps to help people understand their vulnerability to drought. The following two articles are the basis for this approach.

How to Reduce Drought Risk This step-by-step guide helps planners identify actions that can be taken to reduce potential drought-related impacts.

Reducing Drought Risk: Bridging Theory and Practice Provides an in-depth analysis of the theory behind drought risk analysis.

This process can also be undertaken as part of a larger drought planning procedure like the NDMC’s ten-step process, outlined in Drought Preparedness Planning: Building Institutional Capacity.

How to Investigate Drought Vulnerability: It’s as easy as 1-2-3

1. Identify Relevant Drought Impacts and Trends Over Time 2. Rank Significant Drought Impacts 3. Investigate the Underlying Causes of Drought Impacts

Identify Relevant Drought Impacts and Trends over Time

One important aspect of reducing vulnerability is to understand the impacts of drought. Each drought produces a unique set of impacts, depending not only on the drought’s severity, duration, and spatial extent but also on ever-changing social conditions. These impacts are often symptoms of other underlying problems (vulnerabilities). So, in order to understand vulnerability, a good place to start is to investigate drought impacts. The following links provide information on current drought impacts in the United States and around the world.

Drought Impact Reporter Links to current and historical drought impact information.

Sources for Drought Impact Information Links to other resources with information about impacts and current conditions, by state and at the national level.

News Articles Links to articles relating to drought impacts.



Page 29 of 98

Understanding Your Risk and Impacts

Drought Impacts and Vulnerability (cont.)

Current Drought Impacts Around the World Links to current drought impact information across the globe

You can also explore archives of websites with information on historical drought occurrences and impacts in the United States and around the world . Understanding trends in drought occurrence and impacts over time is important for projecting potential future impacts and understanding our changing vulnerabilities. With a good understanding of drought impacts that have affected or could affect your livelihood or activity, the most significant impacts can then be identified for further review by conducting a drought impact assessment.

Rank Significant Drought Impacts Drought can result in many direct and indirect impacts. Some of these may be more important than others in terms of your values and interests. Addressing the most significant impacts first will help target limited resources and hopefully have a larger effect in reducing drought impacts and vulnerabilities.

Ranking Drought Impacts allows planners to target the most significant drought impacts.

Investigate the Underlying Cause of Drought Impacts Once the most significant drought impacts have been identified, it is important to understand why the impacts occur so the true vulnerabilities (causes of the problem) can be addressed. Drought Vulnerability Analysis describes methods to help planners identify the true causes of drought impacts. Once drought risk has been assessed, actions can be taken to mitigate drought impacts.



Page 30 of 98

Attachment B

Average water costs from 2005 to 2007

Facility Year 1st Qtr. 2nd Qtr. 3rd Qtr. 4th Qtr. Total

Elementary Schools

Fernbank 2005 $4,579 $7,434 $4,757 $7,950 $24,720

2006 $4,888 $6,760 $6,811 $6,015 $24,474

2007 $4,463 $6,688 $5,222 $4,658 $21,031

Kingsley 2005 $1,848 $838 $380 $1,575 $4,641

2006 $1,048 $1,324 $821 $1,392 $4,585

2007 $1,170 $1,935 $1,446 $1,400 $5,951

Leslie J Steel 2005 $2,405 $3,033 $3,923 $4,318 $13,679

2006 $971 $2,675 $191 $231 $4,068

2007 $146 $ 1,309 $646 $1,051 $3,152

Livsey 2005 $1,189 $1,308 $870 $1,573 $4,939

2006 $1,234 $1,102 $905 $1,814 $,055

2007 $892 $1,800 $1,064 $1,494 $5,250

Midway 2005 $594 $946 $447 $ 545 $2,531

2006 $1,083 $2,155 $1,250 $ 722 $5,210

2007 $1,105 $2,204 $983 $1,767 $6,059

Smoke Rise ES 2005 $1,034 $1,047 $686 $1,564 $4,331

2006 $993 $925 $1,083 $1,300 $4,300

2007 $604 $1,098 $ 559 $1,173 $3,434

Middle Schools

Bethune 2005 $3,819 $2,481 $1,188 $4,785 $12,273

2006 $2,648 $4,028 $2,477 $ 3,215 $12,368

2007 $1,671 $3,525 $3,372 $3,577 $12,145

Chamblee 2005 $2,426 $1,912 $1,941 $2,345 $8,625

2006 $2,189 $2,067 $ 696 $496 $5,448

2007 $333 $740 $ 507 $523 $2,103

Freedom 2005 $3,484 $2,225 $2,704 $2,707 $11,119

2006 $ 2,044 $2,316 $2,461 $2,548 $9,370

2007 $1,685 $3,079 $2,407 $3,045 $10,215

*random selection of schools & centers


Page 31 of 98

Attachment B (continued)


Middle Schools

Peachtree 2005 $8,316 $3,329 $1,518 $ 4,412 $17,575

2006 $3,978 $3,817 $2,929 $5,176 $15,900

2007 $4,409 $6,360 $3,752 $3,910 $18,431

Shamrock 2005 $2,534 $1,855 $7,024 $3,256 $14,669

2006 $2,312 $3,094 $2,033 $4,265 $11,703

2007 $3,116 $5,338 $4,552 $6,921 $19,927

High Schools

Avondale 2005 $ 5,740 $13,287 $6,804 $13,147 $38,978

2006 $5,326 $6,704 $6,144 $15,863 $34,037

2007 $18,294 $17,404 $9,894 $10,766 $56,358

Chamblee 2005 $9,657 $7,043 $4,727 $7,587 $29,014

2006 $7,862 $5,926 $2,558 $6,948 $23,294

2007 $2,644 $9,132 $7,779 $6,064 $25,618

Dunwoody 2005 $6,114 $2,445 $14,817 $5,899 $29,275

2006 $3,383 $5,547 $6,575 $7,224 $22,730

2007 $2,986 $9,542 $ 6,521 $6,737 $25,787

Miller Grove 2005 $ 717 $160 $ - $2,096 $2,973

2006 $762 $6,867 $7,191 $1,159 $15,979

2007 $667 $4,339 $2,216 $1,874 $9,096

Stephenson 2005 $9,820 $7,182 $12,099 $13,084 $42,185

2006 $11,059 $4,516 $5,084 $5,904 $26,563

2007 $2,050 $6,009 $5,602 $4,986 $18,647

Centers

Freeman Center 2005 $1,949 $ 5,528 $2,747 $2,928 $ 13,153

2006 $2,939 $ 3,004 $2,555 $2,742 $11,240

2007 $2,364 $ 3,671 $2,818 $2,799 $11,651

Adult Education 2005 $1,250 $1,485 $1,466 $547 $4,748

2006 $257 $295 $221 $568 $1,341

2007 $896 $1,045 $981 $1,699 $4,621


Page 32 of 98


Page 33 of 98

Attachment B (continued)


Centers

DeKalb Technology - 2005 $964 $1,984 $866 $1,244 $5,058

South 2006 $663 $3,207 $941 $1,954 $6,765

2007 $3,060 $2,183 $510 $1,348 $7,101

Sam A. Moss Service 2005 $3,286 $4,608 $5,411 $5,638 $18,943

Center 2006 $2,728 $4,870 $5,007 $4,480 $17,085

2007 $1,684 $4,890 $3,527 $3,762 $13,864

Warren Tech 2005 $1,342 $1,592 $5,427 $5,715 $14,076

2006 $1,958 $3,089 $1,268 $1,736 $8,052

2007 $882 $1,955 $1,531 $1,717 $6,085

Three Year Totals $188,512 $240,256 $204,890 $239,939 $873,596

Three Year Monthly Average

$62,837 $80,085 $68,297 $79,980 $291,199

Three Year Monthly Average for Samples $2,992 $3,814 $3,252 $3,809 $13,867


Page 34 of 98

Attachment C

The mission of Project WET is to reach children, parents,

educators, and communities of the world with water education. We invite you to join us in educating children about

the most precious resource on the planet – water.

Curriculum: Children learn by doing. Click here to see how Project WET activities engage students with hands-on, interdisciplinary lessons that teach important concepts about water.

Workshops: Project WET is committed to global water education that is implemented at the community level. Click here to find out how to attend a Project WET workshop in your community.

Project Webfoot: Learn about our new wetlands education program in partnership with Ducks Unlimited.

Employment Opportunities: The Project WET Foundation is currently hiring for the following positions:

• Campaign Fundraiser

News & Events

Project WET Publication Addresses Arizona Governor’s Call for Statewide Water Conservation

Ducks Unlimited, Project WET Partnership Reaches Children with Wetlands Education Nestlé Waters North America and Project WET Award Ten $1,000 Grants to U.S. Educators (Read More.)

Project WET Home

Store

About Us

Donate

Publications & Products


Page 35 of 98

Workshops

Press Room

Sponsors

Jobs

Contact Us

Programs:

International

USA

Healthy Water, Healthy People

Native Waters

Discover A Watershed

KIDS


Page 36 of 98

Attachment D

Water Conservation Plan

Estimated Cost For Student Restroom

Phase IV Phase II & III

Location Urinals 15 per school

Commode 30 per school

Sinks 20 per school

Labor Retrofit

Avg cost per

Location

Faucet Aerators

35 per school

Commode Restrictor

45 per school

Labor Initial Work

Avg cost per

Location

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

Allgood $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Ashford Park $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Atherton $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Austin $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Avondale $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Bob Mathis $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

EL Bowie $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Briarlake $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Briar Vista $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Brockett $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Browns Mill $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Canby Lane $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Cary Reynolds $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Cedar Grove $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Chapel Hill $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Chestnut $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Clifton $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Columbia $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Dresden $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Dunaire $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Eldridge Miller $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Evansdale $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Fairington $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Fernbank $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Flat Rock $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Flat Shoals $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00


Page 37 of 98

Attachment D (continued)

Water Conservation Plan

Estimated Cost For Student Restroom




Sinks 20 per school

Labor Retrofit

Avg cost per

Location

Faucet Aerators

35 per school

Commode Restrictor

45 per school

Labor Initial Work

Avg cost per

Location

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

Forrest Hills $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Glen Haven $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Gresham Park $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Hambrick $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Hawthorne $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Henderson Mill $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Hightower $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00 Hooper Alexander $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Huntley Hills $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Idlewood $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Indian Creek $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Jolly $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Kelley Lake $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Kingsley $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Kittredge $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Knollwood $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

L.J. Steele $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Laurel Ridge $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Livsey $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Marbut $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

McLendon $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

McNair $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Meadowview $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Medlock $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Midvale $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Midway $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Montclair $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00


Page 38 of 98


Water Conservation Plan Estimated Cost For Student Restroom




Sinks 20 per school

Labor Retrofit

Avg cost per

Location

Faucet Aerators

35 per school

Commode Restrictor

45 per school

Labor Initial Work

Avg cost per

Location

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

Montgomery $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00 Murphy Candler $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Nancy Creek $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Narvie Harris $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Oakcliff $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Oak Grove $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Oak View $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Panola Way $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Peachcrest $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Pineridge $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Pleasentdale $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Princeton $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Rainbow $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Redan $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Robert Shaw $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Rockbridge $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Rock Chapel $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Rowland $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00 Sagamore Hills $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Shadow Rock $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Sky Haven $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Smoke Rise $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Snapfinger $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Stone Mill $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00 Stone Mountain $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00

Stone View $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.00


Page 39 of 98





Commode 30

per school

Sinks 20 per school

Labor Retrofit

Avg cost per

Location

Faucet Aerators 35

per school

Commode Restrictor

45 per school

Labor Initial Work

Avg cost per

Location

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Tilson $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.0

0

Toney $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.0

0

Vanderlyn $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.0

0

Wadsworth $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.0

0

Woodridge $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.0

0

Woodward $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.0

0

Wynbrooke $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $42,500.00 $350.00 $450.00 $900.00 $1,700.0

0

Sub-Total

$3,655,000.00

$146,200.00


Page 40 of 98






Sinks 36 per school

Labor Retrofit

Avg cost per

Location

Faucet Aerators

80 per school

Commode Restrictor

90 per school

Labor Initial Work

Avg cost per

Location

MIDDLE SCHOOL

Avondale $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00

$1,800.00 $3,500.00 Cedar Grove $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00

$1,800.00 $3,500.00

Chamblee $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00

$1,800.00 $3,500.00

Champion $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00

$1,800.00 $3,500.00

Chapel Hill $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00

$1,800.00 $3,500.00

Columbia $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00

$1,800.00 $3,500.00

Freedom $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00

$1,800.00 $3,500.00

Henderson $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00

$1,800.00 $3,500.00

Lithonia $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00

$1,800.00 $3,500.00 Mary McLeod Bethume $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00

$1,800.00 $3,500.00

Miller Grove $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Peachtree $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Redan $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00 Ronald McNair $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Salem $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Sequoyah $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Shamrock $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Stephenson $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00 Stone Mountain $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Tucker $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Sub-Total $1,896,000.00 $70,000.00


Page 41 of 98






Sinks 36 per school

Labor Retrofit

Avg cost per

Location

Faucet Aerators

80 per school

Commode Restrictor

90 per school

Labor Initial Work

Avg cost per

Location

HIGH SCHOOL

Avondale $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Cedar Grove $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Chamblee $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Clarkston $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Columbia $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Cross Keys $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

DSA $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Druid Hills $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Dunwoody $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Lakeside $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Lithonia $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

M.L. King $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Miller Grove $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Open Campus $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Redan $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Ronald McNair $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00 Southwest DeKalb $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Stephenson $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Stone Mountain $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Towers $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Tucker $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Sub-Total $1,990,800.00 $73,500.00


Page 42 of 98


Water Conservation Plan Estimated Cost For Restroom




Sinks 36 per school

Labor Retrofit

Avg cost

Faucet Aerators

80 per school

Commode Restrictor

90 per school

Labor Initial Work

Avg cost

CENTERS

Coralwood Diagnostic $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

DeKalb Alternative $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

DeKalb Alternative Night school $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

DeKalb Tech. - North $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00 DeKalb Tech. - South $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

DeKalb Transition $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

DeKalb Truancy $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Destiny Academy of Excellence $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Drivers Ed – North $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00 Drivers Ed – South $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00 Drivers Ed – MIC $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Eagle Woods $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Fernbank Science $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Freeman Center A/B 18,000.00 48,000.00 21,600.000 102,000.00 189,600.00 1,600.00 1,800.00 3,600.00 7,000.00

Heritage $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

International Student / Warren Tech $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Margaret Harris $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Shadow Rock $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Sam Moss Service Center $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

WBB Center $9,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,800.00 $51,000.00 $94,800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00

Sub-Total $1,990,800.00 $73,500.00

Retrofit Initial

Elementary Schools -86 $3,655,000.00 $146,200.00

Middle Schools – 20 $1,896,000.00 $70,000.00

High Schools - 21 $1,990,800.00 $73,500.00

Centers -21 $1,990,800.00 $73,500.00

GRAND TOTAL $9,532,600.00 $363,200.00


Page 43 of 98

Attachment E

Retro fit all 163 facilities with new low flow toilet bowls and waterless urinals.

PHASE

SCHOOL

YEAR

# ELEMENTARY

SCHOOLS

# HIGH SCHOOLS

AND CENTERS

ESTIMATED

YEARLY COST

PHASE IV

2010

8

6

$908,800.00

PHASE IV

2011

8

6

$908,800.00

PHASE IV

2012

8

6

$908,800.00

PHASE IV

2013

8

6

$908,800.00

PHASE IV

2014

9

6

$951,300.00

PHASE IV

2015

9

6

$951,300.00

PHASE IV

2016

9

6

$951,300.00

PHASE IV

2017

9

6

$951,300.00

PHASE IV

2018

9

7

$1,046,100.00

PHASE IV

2019

9

7

$1,046,100.00

ESTIMATED TOTAL

$9,532,600.00

*Plumbing fixture standards for toilets and sink faucets should be followed, and cost/payback periods for installing ultra-low flow toilets and low-flow faucet aerators, or retro-fitting existing plumbing equipment should be among the first water conservation options considered.


Page 44 of 98

Attachment F

Approximate 2007-08 Costs of Low-Flow Plumbing Fixtures and Retrofits

FIXTURE COST RANGE Kitchen Faucet-2.0 gpm

$40-$260

Lavatory Faucet- 1.6 gpm

$25-$170

Showerhead-2.0 gpm

$15-$50

ULF Toilet-1.6 gpm

$80-$600

Urinal Waterless Fixture

$300-$400

Urinal Flush Valve

$100 and up

Infrared Faucet Control

$300 and up

Faucet Flow Restrictor

$10

Faucet Aerator

$2-$10

Toilet Bowl Restrictor

$2-$10

Ten Guiding Principles for Water Efficiency

1. Use waterless technologies where available. 2. Maximize use of on-site sources of water. 3. Choose equipment that is water- and energy-efficient. 4. Install automatic shutoffs, solenoids and controllers to turn water off when not needed. 5. Reuse and recycle water where possible. 6. Install flow restrictors where possible. 7. Use countercurrent washing (as opposed to parallel rinsing) technologies where applicable. 8. Meter and sub-meter major uses. 9. Eliminate once-through cooling. 10. Design for energy efficiency


Page 45 of 98

Healthy & Safe Healthy & Safe Healthy & Safe Healthy & Safe Cleaning Program Cleaning Program Cleaning Program Cleaning Program

(H&SC)(H&SC)(H&SC)(H&SC)

“Promoting Clean and Healthy Learning Environments”


Page 46 of 98

DeKalb County School System Operations Division March 2008

DeKalb County School System (DCSS), Department of Plant Services (DPS) is committed to providing a healthy facility environment that is conducive to student learning, and employee productivity. The DPS also recognizes its social responsibility to protect natural resources for future generations. As a result of this commitment to students, staff and the environment, the DPS has developed this Healthy and Safe Cleaning (H&SC) program. Green Building Cleaning Plan: “Promoting Clean and Healthy Environments” It will be the policy of the DeKalb County School System, Operations Division, to practice Green Cleaning in all buildings. The goal of the Green Building Cleaning Plan is to reduce exposure of building occupants and maintenance and custodial personnel to potentially hazardous chemical, biological and particle contaminants, which adversely impact air quality, health, building finishes, building systems, and the environment and to reduce the environmental impacts of cleaning products, disposable janitorial products and trash bags. Applicability: Beginning with the construction of Arabia Mountain High School, adoption of this plan shall include all properties owned, managed, occupied and maintained by the Operations Division of the DeKalb County School System.

Implementation: Upon implementation of this plan, the Operations Department shall move to comply with this plan. Equipment will be phased out and replaced as appropriate in order to comply with this plan. For any building, seeking LEED certification, all products and materials and cleaning equipment will be provided that complies with this plan. Introduction of Green Cleaning: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states that proper sanitation and cleaning are important for a healthy building environment. Some cleaning products, however can contain harmful chemicals that contaminate the environment and endanger human health. Implementing “green cleaning” practices can reduce these health, safety, and environmental risks. Green cleaning involves selecting alternative products, using those products properly, and taking other steps to reduce risks while maintaining a satisfactory level of cleanliness and disinfection.

Training of Staff: With the addition of new cleaning products and equipment to DeKalb County Schools, a training program including but not limited to, manufacturers videos and on-site training will be available to applicable staff and personnel. All training provided to custodial staff, will be documented. Documentation: The training of staff is crucial to the success of the Green Building Cleaning Plan in the DCSS, therefore documentation of performance reviews will be applicable to appropriate staff and personnel. At each site review, the Custodial Service Managers in conjunction with Supervisors will complete a “Performance Review” to document that the Green Cleaning Plan has been adequately followed. The individual responsible for the ordering of supplies, shall maintain a listing of products purchased that comply with this plan and those that do not. Those that do not comply with this plan will be replaced with products meeting the requirements of this plan. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) shall be maintained for all products purchased. MSDS will be made available for all employees and contracted employees who may use these products. Integrated pest management relates to this plan as well, and whenever cleaning products are used in support of the integrated pest management plan, these products will comply with this plan.


Page 47 of 98

SECTION A - SUMMARY

This plan serves two primary functions. First, the plan informs facility managers and educates the building service staff on how to achieve “green housekeeping” requirements. Second, the plan serves as the US Green Building Council (USGBC) LEEDTM

submittal to demonstrate the intent for a “green cleaning & housekeeping” innovation credit has been met for this Project. The USGB has stated the intent for a “green cleaning/ housekeeping” innovation credit as “Reduce exposure of building occupants and maintenance personnel to potentially hazardous chemical contaminants that adversely impact air quality, occupant well being, and the environment.” The project team must demonstrate that a “comprehensive green cleaning/housekeeping program is in place with clear performance goals” in order to receive this innovation credit. To show that these requirements are met, the USGBC request, and this plan provides, the following: 1. A statement of purpose describing what the policy is trying

to achieve from a health and environmental standpoint, focusing on cleaning chemicals and custodial training at a minimum.

2. A contractual or procedural requirement for operations staff to comply with the guidelines, including a written program for training and implementation.

3. A clear set of acceptable performance level standards by which to measure progress or achievement, such as Green Seal Standard GS – 37 of the US Green Building Council (USGBC).

4. Documentation of the program’s housekeeping policies and environmental cleaning solution specifications, including a list of approved and prohibited chemicals and practices. Demonstrate that the products used in the project are non-hazardous, have low environmental impact, and meet the criteria set forth in #3 above. Concentrated cleaning products should be utilized when available.

5. Select six major cleaning needs and identify products (compliant with #3 above) that will be supplied to meet these needs. Note that one cleaner may address several cleaning functions. Examples of cleaning needs include, but are not limited to: counter, sink, shower, tile, limescale, remover, toilet, hard flooring, laundry detergent, laundry bleach and windows.

“Green Notes”

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Page 48 of 98

SECTION B – Statement of Purpose

This plan and its requirements is a commitment to purchase and use cleaning and grounds care products and methods that reduce adverse impacts on public health and the environment. Cleaning methods set forth herein emphasize the removal of indoor pollutants (including soils, particulates, microbes, etc.) while maintaining a safe and healthy environment for all students, workers and other building occupants. Additionally, methods minimize the amount of product used as well as the amount of waste that is created. Products that fall under this plan include general purpose, hand soaps, paper supplies for cleaning, and paper supplies for restrooms. The product recommendations included in this plan are meant to provide current examples of acceptable cleaning products; however, substitute products may be used, provided they meet the criteria set forth in this plan. There are two primary benefits to “green” interior sanitation methods. First, selecting products that do not contain environmental contaminants reduces the ecological impact of cleaning products that end up down the drain. Second, cleaning practices that take environmental principles into account improve indoor air quality for building occupants and cleaning staff. The result is a decrease in building-related illness, greater productivity, and reduced liability for the school system. Green housekeeping is shown to reduce suspended particles, volatile organic compounds, as well as bacteria and fungi. (“Indoor Environment Characterization of a Non-Problem Building: Assessment of Cleaning Effectiveness” prepared for the US EPA Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office by Research Triangle Institute, 1994.) Training, involvement and close collaboration with students, staff and the community is a key component of the program promoting environmental principles beyond the school walls. The DPS H&SC approach consists of six essential components; products, equipment, processes, certification, audit and collaboration. It includes use of chemicals and equipment that have been certified as environmentally preferable by independent organizations such as Green Seal and the Carpet and Rug Institute. Documented best practices for accomplishing tasks i.e. Systematic Team Cleaning, Integrated Pest Management and the School Eco Response Team will also be used.

“Green Notes”

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Helpful Hints

For more information related to the US EPA Environmental Criteria and

Assessment,

Please visit: www.epa.gov


Page 49 of 98

The DPS places high strategic value on maintaining sustainable operations and therefore will continue to monitor buildings for adherence to LEED for Existing Building criteria by performing regular quality assurance inspections. This program will be fully implemented when students, staff and the community at all schools recognize, understand, and celebrate it and begin to pass on these concepts beyond DCSS. Guiding Principles 1. Every day, every student has the right to a healthy

and safe school environment. Every adult is accountable and personally responsible for protecting the health and safety of students. Every adult is expected to work collaboratively to sustain a healthy and safe environment by:

a. Recognizing the factors that contribute to an

unhealthy environment. b. Knowing how what they do contribute to the

environment (we must all be responsible for our impact on the environment).

c. Taking corrective actions and/or notifying appropriate staff necessary to restore the environment to healthy conditions.

The DPS will provide training and communicate with staff and community users to educate them on the value of H&SC on the health and academic performance of students as well as the personal and environmental benefits of a successful program.

“Green Notes”

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What Does the Green Seal Mean?

Green Seal works with manufacturers, industry sectors, purchasing groups and governments at all levels to "green" the production and purchasing chain. We utilize a life-cycle approach, which means we evaluate a product or service beginning with material extraction, continuing with manufacturing and use, and ending with recycling and disposal. Products only become Green Seal certified after rigorous testing and evaluation, including on-site plant visits.

www.greenseal.org


Page 50 of 98

2. Every employee has the right to work in a healthy

and safe environment. Workplace conditions are regularly evaluated to minimize worker/occupant exposure to harmful contaminants and cleaning residues. Systemic processes are in place to assure compliance with OSHA standards, safe operating procedures, and use of safe tools, equipment and supplies. Proper procedures, potential hazards and safety information are documented, clearly communicated to workers and readily available for review.

3. What gets measured gets done. The DPS uses an

automated inspection tool, to evaluate and manage school facilities for key environmental, safety and health issues, this tool is used to monitor and verify that H&SC standards are being maintained. Regular assessments of school facilities are performed to track and manage information on environmental conditions. Information from these assessments is used to ensure consistent application of the standards throughout the school and drive improvement.

4. Effective cleaning that ensures consistent, thorough

cleaning is achieved by applying systematic approaches to work planning and work flow considering the entire school campus and programs; including building, grounds and activities. The DPS staff use systematic work plans and custodial and grounds equipment that minimize student exposure to noise, dust, cleaning residues and exhaust fumes. Specialized duties are assigned to each staff member so that the amount of time necessary to accomplish tasks is minimal, the quality of cleaning is consistent throughout the building and the potential for occupant exposure to adverse affects is limited.

5. Effective management of the exterior environment is

essential to ensure healthy conditions are sustained in the interior environment. Minimize pollutants entering the building, while maximizing the amount of pollutants extracted.

6. Healthy, High Performance Cleaning can be

accomplished while the amount of chemicals used and moisture accumulated and/or released into the air is limited.

“Green Notes”

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

� We throw away enough paper each year to heat 50 million homes for 20 years.

� If we all recycled 25% of our

newspapers, we could save close to 70,000 trees

� A typical family member uses over 80

gallons of water each day. � Over 80% of a households annual

waste can be recycled

� The average American house consumes nearly $1,500.00 per year in utilities. These can be reduced as much as 90% by implementing resource efficient methods of construction and utilities.


Page 51 of 98

7. Emergency response plans ensure rapid restoration

of areas affected by unsuspected incidents such as floods, spills, blood, etc.

8. Disposal of cleaning waste in environmentally safe

ways preserve and protect the local ecology. 9. Regularly scheduled preventative maintenance on

HVAC systems ensures healthy, indoor air quality, climate control and longevity of equipment. The DPS uses comprehensive building maintenance plans, employee training and quality assurance inspections to effectively operate and maintain mechanical systems.

10. Together, we can make a difference. Training,

involvement of and close collaboration with students, staff and the community ensures sustainability of the H&SC Program.

Section C below, Requirements and Product Recommendations, provides the details on how to implement this plan. Requirements for cleaning practices, including how cleaning products are to be stored, specific methods for cleaning (what is required and what is not allowed), a cleaning frequency schedule, custodial equipment operational standards and requirements for disposal and recycling are identified. Referenced standards that must be met when purchasing cleaning products, including a list of prohibited ingredients are provided. This also includes specific product recommendations that meet the required standards. Requirements for grounds care and mechanical systems operations are also identified. Finally, are the requirements for staff training. Section D provides additional resources, including product manufacturers, and Section E is a glossary of terms used in this plan.

Section C – Requirements & Product Recommendations

1. Cleaning Practice Requirements

The HS&C objectives for maintaining the interior of schools are to maximize the amount of pollutants extracted, minimize worker/occupant exposure to harmful contaminants and cleaning residues, minimize the amount of chemicals, particles, and moisture accumulated and/or released into the air by the cleaning process, and dispose of cleaning waste in an environmentally responsible manner.

“Green Notes”

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Page 52 of 98

To ensure that these objectives are accomplished, the DPS utilizes a Systematic Team Cleaning (STC) approach that maximizes the quality, quantity and consistency of building services. STC also reduces error and equipment and energy costs. This approach systematizes the application of personnel, tasks, frequency, time and space to get the most out of the cleaning process. Additionally, quality assurance inspections are performed daily by onsite staff and as scheduled by offsite supervisors.

Storage Requirements for Cleaning Products

a. Containers will be securely closed when not in use

b. Storage areas that contain cleaning products will be fully ventilated

c. Custodial closets and storage areas will be kept clean and free of standing water

d. Used cloths and wet mops will be rinsed after each use; hang up to dry (do not leave wet items in sinks or buckets)

e. Dispensing equipment that minimizes worker exposure will be used

Cleaning Procedures

a. Reducing chemical use The goal is to minimize occupant and worker exposure to aggravating or harmful chemicals released into the indoor environment during cleaning processes. Particular attention is given to floor maintenance procedures that minimize or eliminate chemical use. i. Apply durable floor finishes; deep-scrub with

floor cleaner and re-coat finish as necessary (avoid the use of floor strippers)

ii. Scrub floors regularly to remove dirt and

embedded marks in floor finishes (to reduce the need for stripping); perform floor scrubbing when students and other occupants are not present in the immediate future

“Green Notes”

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

TOXINS and SCHOOLS Don’t Mix

o According to USA Today, many schools in the US contain harmful toxins and other chemical contaminants that endanger children’s health.

o 1/5 of US population spends at

least 6 hours a day inside school buildings as students, faculty, staff and administration.


Page 53 of 98

iii. Ensure cleaning schedule meets actual

needs to avoid redundant cleaning

iv. Use microfiber mops and cloths that do not require application of chemicals, and which reduce the use of disposable paper towels

v. Spot clean with scouring pad first; use

cleaning solution only as required

vi. Use a solution of 4 oz. vinegar to 4 gallons cold water for rinsing

b. Product dilution

i. Dilute all concentrated cleaning chemicals

per manufacturer recommendations for each application

ii. Use lowest concentration possible for each application

c. Reducing dust and dirt

Effective dusting, dust mopping, and vacuuming thoroughly captures dust particles and prevents them from circulating into the air, moving to other surfaces, or being draw into ventilation equipment.

i. Provide roll-up mats at each outside door;

vacuum and spot clean roll-up entryway mats daily and use carpet extractor with wand attachment weekly – proper and frequent entryway cleaning reduces outdoor contaminants from being spread throughout the building, which extends the longevity of the flooring systems and reduces the need for floor maintenance tasks (such as stripping and applying additional coats of floor finish)

ii. Replace mats when there is visible surface wear

“Green Notes”

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Page 54 of 98

iii. Vacuum or damp-mop instead of sweeping iv. Use vacuum cleaners that meet the

standards for CRI Green Label v. Change vacuum bags when they are ¾ full;

check bags prior to each use vi. Use a damp cloth or microfiber cloth to

remove dust vii. Use burnishers or high-speed buffing

machines that are equipped with vacuum attachments and dust prevention skirts.

d. Reducing microbial growth

i. Wet-cleaning equipment for carpets should

have high-quality extractors that leave carpeting dry to prevent microbial growth

ii. Apply disinfectants where/when required; allow 3-5 minutes for disinfectant to take effect prior to cleaning.

iii. Use all purpose cleansers instead of bleach to remove microbes

iv. Change microfiber mops and cloths on a regular basis; at a minimum, replace mop heads and cloths daily, wash and rinse thoroughly after each use, or when they smell or show visible dirt, even when rinsed thoroughly

v. Ensure that mops are allowed to dry completely between uses; mops should be hung in janitorial closet on hooks provided, not stored in buckets or slop sink

vi. Clean areas where water collects or condenses

e. Restroom cleaning

Effective restroom cleaning procedures remove harmful germs and bacteria that may be present on door handles, fixtures, walls, floor and floor drains, and other surfaces. All of these must be cleaned and disinfected regularly to prevent the spread of contagious illnesses. Since restrooms are heavily used, there must be a schedule to ensure that they are refreshed frequently. Refresher schedules shall include restocking of hand soap, toilet paper, and paper towels, as well as spot cleaning where required.

“Green Notes”

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For More Information Visit:

www.greenandhealthy.org


Page 55 of 98

i. Clean daily all: floors, counter tops basins, toilet partitions, toilets, urinals, light switches, mirrors, door knobs, and showers.

ii. Disinfect floors, counter tops, basins, toilets, urinals, and showers daily (after cleaning)

iii. Ensure floor drains are operating properly

f. Food preparation and eating areas i. Clean daily all: floors, counter tops, basins,

appliances/equipment, light switches, and door knobs.

ii. Disinfect floors, counter tops, and basins daily (after cleaning)

iii. Clean all surfaces that come in contact with food preparation after each meal or use; keep free of food scraps and debris

iv. Clean all washing areas and appliances, including cooking and eating utensils, after each meal or use

v. Clean tables and chairs (top and underside) after each meal or use; disinfect after cleaning

vi. Keep floors clean, free of food scraps, debris and any signs of bio-contamination; clean at least once daily

vii. Ensure floor drains are operating properly and odor-free; flush clogged drains with hot water to remove clog

viii. Trash receptacles are to be tightly covered and emptied at least once daily (or when full); do not allow trash to overflow

ix. Inspect all food preparation and eating areas for evidence of insects, rodents, or bio-contamination (such as mold)

g. Prohibited Practices

i. Do not mix products that contain chlorine (or

chlorinated compounds) with those that contain ammonia

h. Cleaning Frequency Schedule and Checklist

The HS&C Checklist shall be used in training cleaning staff and as a task checklist on cleaning charts.

i. Disposal Requirements a. Excess product

1. Use all cleaning products until

containers are completely empty

“Green Notes”

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Page 56 of 98

2. Use products with expiration dates prior

to expiration 3. Dispose of all excess product in

accordance with manufacturer instructions

b. Packaging

1. Recyclable packaging includes, at a minimum; white office paper, mixed paper, press board, corrugated

2. Cardboard, plastics #1 (PET) and #2

(HDPE), metal, and glass.

3. Recycle all packaging in designated recycling areas

2. Ground Care Requirements

The H&SC objectives for maintaining grounds are to remove hazards (such as broken glass and other trash), prevent outside pollutants from entering the school, minimize the amount of pollutants released into the air and grounds, and minimize the noise. 2.1 Reducing Chemical Use

a. An integrated pest management policy promotes the use of alternatives to chemical pesticides; when non-chemical methods are not available or prove ineffective, use nontoxic or least toxic pesticide options. School inspections are performed and notifications issued to ensure that staff and school related organizations (i.e. PTA) act in accordance with these regulations.

b. Eliminate the use of herbicides (weeds

may be removed by hand)

c. Show removal and deicing

1. Snow shall be removed by physical means; do not use deicing chemicals to remove snow; remove snow using equipment such as plows, shovels, or snow-blowers

“Green Notes”

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Helpful Hints

For a complete list of Green Seal approved products, visit:

www.greenseal.org/findaproduct/cleaners.cfm


Page 57 of 98

2. Do not over-apply de-icers; remove ice physically when possible and apply only the amount of product that is needed to melt ice.

3. Avoid the use of chloride salts for de-

icing (harmful to vegetation, corrode steel, and can cause scaling, cracking, and spalling in concrete) in favor of vegetable-based agricultural by product de-icers.

2.2 Reduction of Airborne Particulates and Fumes

1. Do not use a blower to remove normal to average accumulation of dust and debris near building entrances. Instead, sweep or hose down.

2. Do not use a mechanical mower on areas

where ground cover is shorter than 1 inch or where dirt is exposed.

3. Use battery powered equipment

4. Grounds waste should be left in

designated areas for pick up

3. Product Standards

3.1 Referenced Standards

a. All cleaning products must meet the requirements in the following third-party standards: Green Seal standards for “Industrial & Institutional Cleaners” (GS-37) Green Seal standards for “Tissue Paper” (GS-01) Green Seal standards for “Paper Towels and Paper Napkins” (GS-09)

b. Consider “green housekeeping”

certification from Green Seal through its “Green Facilities Operation and Maintenance Criteria” (GS-39)

c. All exterior pest management products

must meet the requirements of Green Seal

d. Consider using products that meet the requirements of Green Seal standards for Cleaning/Degreasing Agents”(GS-34)

Green Notes”

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Page 58 of 98

3.2 List of Prohibited Cleaning Chemicals

The chemicals found in cleaning products include toxins, such as known human carcinogens, narcotics, neurotoxins, terratogens, and mutagens. The EPA has catalogued complaints directly associated with cleaning product, the most common of which include; eye and respiratory irritation, headaches and chronic fatigue, dizziness and heart irregularities, impaired judgment and coordination, irritability and mood swings, nausea, and joint and muscle pain. Many of these chemicals are unnecessary additives.

a. All cleaning products will be free from the

following chemicals:

1. Alkyl phenol ethoxylates – class of detergents linked to endocrine disruption and with high aquatic toxicity

2. Benzene-volatile organic compound

used as a solvent and a known carcinogen

3. Optical brighteners 4. Ozone-depleting compounds (ODCs)

– see Section E, Definitions 5. Phthalates and dibutyl phthalate –

family of chemicals frequently used as a plasticizer; probable carcinogen and known to cause chronic health effects including kidney and liver abnormalities

6. Heavy metals, including arsenic, lead,

cadmium, cobalt, chromium, mercury – heavy metals bio-accumulate in the environment and in people, and linked to many health issues, including neurological disorders, kidney problems, high blood pressure, birth defects, and genetic mutation.

Green Notes”

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

.


Page 59 of 98

b. All cleaning products will be free from chemicals listed in the 11

th Report on

Carcinogens published by the National Toxicology Program

c. Minimize the use of the following cleaning

chemicals or products containing them:

1. Ammonia and quaternary ammonium compounds – effective disinfectant and stain remover that is linked to asthma and skin sensitization

2. Chlorine and chlorinated compounds,

including bleach – a disinfectant, not a cleaner, that is highly corrosive, is a severe eye and respiratory system irritant that is often contaminated with mercury (a potent neurotoxin)

Phosphates – over nutrify waterways and can cause algae blooms Monoethanolamine – typically used a s a medical disinfectant and linked to asthma Chlorhexidine – typically used as a medical disinfectant and linked to asthma Chloramine – typically used as a medical disinfectant and linked to asthma Zinc and zinc compounds – soluble forms are toxic to aquatic life

3.3 Additional Product Selection Criteria

a. All products must be clearly labeled and prominently state dilution recommendation

b. Avoid aerosol products c. Undiluted products must not contain

ingredients that are toxic to humans (meet exposure limits set by NIOSH or OSHA)

d. Undiluted products must not be corrosive

to the skin or eyes

e. Products must eliminate fragrances or show that any fragrances meet the Code of Practice of the International Fragrance Association

Green Notes”

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Page 60 of 98

f. Products must not be combustible

(flashpoint above 150 degrees F) g. Ingredients must not pollute waterways

(directly or indirectly)

• Ingredients must not contain total phosphorous (including compounds) that exceed .5% by weight

• Ingredients must not be toxic to

aquatic life

• Ingredients must exhibit ready biodegradability (removal of DOC by >70% or BOD by .60% according to ISO testing methods 9439, 10718, 10808, or 7827)

h. Give preference to products with

recyclable primary packaging i. Give preference to packaging made with

post-consumer recycle content

j. Additional application – specific criteria are included in “Product Recommendations”

3.4 Product Documentation Requirements

At least one of the following shall be on file to demonstrate that products meet or exceed the standards listed above: a. Proof the products have been Green Seal

certified

1. Signed statement by a senior company official (Vice President or higher) for the product manufacturer stating that the product will be certified by Green Seal within 90 days

2. Certification by an independent third –

party stating that the products have been tested in accordance with the Green Seal standards and that the products meet or exceed those standards. Such certification must include a review of all test data

“Green Notes”

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Better Products Better Environment!!

Environmentally Friendly Products make a Difference!

o Saved 1,837 trees

o Prevented 6,484 pounds of ozone-depleting

greenhouse gases from entering the

atmosphere

o Saved 42,148 gallons of oil, enough to

drive a car from NY to LA 303 times

o Saved 443,094 kwh of energy, enough

power to the average American household

for 9 years

o Saved 865 cubic feet of landfill space

o Saved 756,508 gallons of water, enough for

8 average American households for 1 year


Page 61 of 98

4. Product Recommendations

Product Recommendations for each cleaning application that meet the policies and standards defined above are attached. The product recommendations included in this plan provide examples of acceptable cleaning products; however, substitute products may be used, provided they meet the criteria set forth in this plan. Prior to purchase and use, all products will be evaluated and approved by DPS Environmental Services. Product manufacturer will provide training in product appropriateness for each designated application and recommended dilution for all concentrate products. Product labels and instructions will be clear and visible for cleaning staff.

Paper Products

a. Paper supplies for cleaning b. Paper supplies for restrooms

Mechanical Systems Operational Requirements

Regularly scheduled preventative maintenance on HVAC systems will be documented to ensure healthy, indoor air quality, climate control and longevity of equipment. Building Maintenance Plans will be in place to document preventative maintenance routines, indoor air quality assessments, schedules of required tasks, i.e. filter changes, lubrication and calibration, service records on ventilation systems, proper operating values, and log sheets.

Staff Training

Training will be provided to all cleaning staff for all methods and products described within this plan. A Safety Manual is available on site and is accessible to all staff members. Safety Manual shall include contact information to direct product questions, emergency contact for hazardous event (such as a spill), MSDS for all products, and step-by-step instructions for proper use of each product (including use, dilution, and disposal). If cleaning staff is non-English speaking, consider using training and Safety Manual that is in multi-lingual format and/or provide dilution instructions in pictorial format. Training for proper use of specific products should be provided through the product manufacturer or distributor if offered. Training must include, at a minimum:

Green Notes”

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Page 62 of 98

a. General orientation b. Review of this plan, including intent,

procedures, and products; incorporate into semi-annual staff training

c. On-site supervised training:

1. General cleaning practices and

techniques

2. Use and care of housekeeping equipment and supplies

3. Housekeeping chemicals

d. Review of Safety Manual and where it is

located for reference e. Review of universal warning symbols

pertaining to hazardous substances and waste

f. Instruction on how to read a material safety

data sheet (MSDS)

Where applicable, procurement training will be provided for responsible parties. Procurement training will include, at a minimum, review of the requirements in this plan and all referenced standards. Checklist will be provided and posted on site for cleaning staff that describes procedural requirements in accordance with this plan.

“Green Notes”

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Page 63 of 98

Section D – Resources

a. Additional Information:

• Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, http://atsdr.cdc.gov

• Center for Disease Control and Prevention, www.cdc.gov

• Center for Health, Environment and Justice, www.chej.org

• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), www.epa.gov

• European Eco-Label Catalogue, www.eco-label.com • Green Seal, Choose Green Reports,

www.greenseal.org • Healthy Schools Network, Guide to Healthier

Cleaning & Maintenance Practices and Products, www.informinc.org

• Institute for Health and Environment, www.albany.edu/ihe

• National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), www.niehs.nih.gov

• Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), www.nrdc.org

• New American Dream, List of Approved Cleaning Products, www.newdream.org

• Ninth Report on Carcinogens, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, http://ehis.niehs.nih.gov/roc/toc9.html

• US Green Building Council, www.usgbc.org

b. Product Manufacturers:

• Betco, “Green” Products, www.betco.com

• The Clean Environment Company, www.cleanenvironmentco.com

• Cleanline Products, www.cleanlineproducts.com

• Cogent Environmental Solutions, www.Ecogent.ca • CPC Aeroschience, SOYLution,

www.cpcaerosols.com/soulution/ • EcoLab, www.ecolab.com

• Eco-Products, www.ecoproducts.com • Enviro-Solutions, www.enviro-solution.com

• EnvirOx, www.h2orange2.com • Interstate Products, Inc., Natural Cleaners,

www.interstateproducts.com/natural.htm

“Green Notes”

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Page 64 of 98

• Healthy Green Buildings, Environmental Guardian, Commercial Cleaning Products, www.cleaningpro.com/products/commerical/commercial.htm

• The Real Earth, Inc., www.treeco.com • RochesterMidlandCorporation,

www.rochestermidland.com/division/institute.ghouse.htm

• Seventh Generation, www.seventhgeneration.com

• Penford Products, www.penfordproducts.com • Glacial Technologies, www.anti-icers.com

• Seneca Mineral, www.senecamineral.com • Dow, www.dow.com

“Green Notes”

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Page 65 of 98

Section E – Definitions

A Antimicrobial An agent that destroys or inhibits the growth

of micro-organisms, such as bacteria and fungi

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials B Bathroom Cleaners A category of products used to clean hard

surfaces in a bathroom, such as counters, walls, floors, fixtures, basins, tubs, and tile. It includes products that are required to be registered to be registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and the Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), such as Disinfectants and sanitizers, but does not include products specifically intended to clean toilet bowls

Bio – Accumulation The tendency of a substance to concentrate

in the tissues of organisms over time

Biodegradable Material that can be broken down by microorganisms into simpler, more stable components

BOD Biological oxygen demand

Building – Related Illness whose cause and symptoms can be Illness diagnosed and attributed to a specific

pollutant source within a building

C Carcinogen A chemical listed as a known, probable, or

possible human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the National Toxicology Program (NTP), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or the Occupational Health and Safety Administration

CPSC Consumer Product Safety Commission Concentrate A product that must be diluted by at least

eight parts by volume water prior to its intended use


Page 66 of 98

Contaminant A substance (physical, biological, chemical

or radiological) that has an adverse effect on soil, air and/or water

Corrosive A substance that causes visible destruction

of, or irreversible alterations in, living tissue by chemical action at the site of contact

D Dispensing System Products designed to be used in dispensing

systems that cannot be practically accessed by users

Disinfectant Products used on hard surfaces to destroy

or irreversibly inactivate all forms of microbial life, but not necessarily their spores. Not all disinfectants destroy all types of microbes.

F FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act Fungus A group of organisms such as mildew, mold,

yeast and mushrooms, that lack chlorophyll.

G Glass Cleaners A category of products used to clean

windows, glass, and polished surfaces General Purpose Products used for routine cleaning of Cleaners of hard surfaces including impervious

flooring such as concrete or tile. H HSDB Hazardous Substance Data Bank I IAQ Considered to be acceptable when no (Indoor Air Quality) known air-borne contaminants exist at

concentrations that my be harmful or cause irritation.

Ingredient Any constituent of a product, whether

intentionally added or not, that comprises at least 0.01% by weight of the product


Page 67 of 98

ISO International Organization for Standardization IARC An arm of the World Health Organization (International that studies association between Agency for substances and cancer Research Cancer) M Microbial Growth Multiplication of microorganisms such as

fungi and bacteria Mutagen A substance that has been linked to

increased rates of genetic mutation (above the average rate).

N Neurotoxin A substance with toxic effects on any portion

of the central or peripheral nervous system NIOSH Part of U.S. Department of Health and (National Institute Human Services that conducts research and Occupational makes recommendations on health and Safety and Health) safety standards, including setting short and

long-term exposure limits for many chemicals

O Off-Gassing The vaporization of chemical compounds

into surrounding air. Optical Brighteners Additives designed to enhance the

appearance of colors and whiteness in materials by absorbing ultraviolet radiation and emitting blue radiation. Also known as fluorescent whitening agents.

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health

Administration Ozone Depleting Any compound with the potential to deplete Compound (ODC) stratospheric ozone layer Ozone Depleting A relative measure of the ability of Potential (ODP) substance to break down the stratospheric

ozone layer


Page 68 of 98

P Post- Consumer Waste material that has served an intended

use Post – Industrial Waste material from manufacturing

processes Ppm Parts per million Primary Packaging The material physically containing and

coming into contact with the product, not including the cap or lid of a bottle.

Product as Used The most concentrated form of the product

that the Manufacturer recommends for an intended use.

R Recyclable Any packaging that can be diverted from the Packaging waste stream through available processes

and programs, and can be collected, processed, and returned to use in the form of raw materials or products

Reproductive Toxin A chemical which may cause birth defects or

sterility RTECS Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances S Sanitizer Products that reduce, but do not necessarily

eliminate, micro-organisms to level that are considered safe.

Sick Building A phenomenon in which building occupants Syndrome experience a variety of health and/or

comfort effects linked to time spent in a particular building, but where no specific illness or causative agent can be identified. Symptoms in sufferers often include headaches, eye irritation, and respiratory irritation.

Sterilizer Products used to destroy or eliminate all

forms of microbial life, including spores. Primarily used in health- care settings.


Page 69 of 98

T Terratogen A substance that has been directly linked to

birth defects during human fetus development

Toxicity The degree to which a material causes or

threatens to cause adverse health effects to living organisms at a given concentration. Expressed in exposure limits.

TVOC Total Volatile Organic Compounds; see

VOC (Volatile Organic Compound) U Undiluted Product The most concentrated form of a product

produced by a manufacturer for transport outside its facility.

V VOC (Volatile Chemical compounds that contain carbon Organic Compound) and that partially vaporize at normal room

temperature. VOCs are a group of chemicals that have varying degrees of toxicity and effects.


Planning Green Facilities Page 70 of 98

“Promoting Clean and Healthy Learning Environments”



Green Buildings and the Impact On Our Environment There can be no doubt that buildings have a major impact on the environment. Buildings account for 71% of the U.S. electricity consumption, 70% of all landfill waste, and 39% of the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Construction of buildings in the U.S. produces approximately 136 million tons of waste which equates to almost 2.8 pounds of trash per person per day. It also accounts for approximately 12.2% of the portable water usage in the U.S. and approximately 40% of the raw materials used globally. These are staggering statistics. The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) was established in 1993 and has developed the industry accepted standards for green building and development. The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Rating System is the gauge used to measure the success of meeting the criteria for green building. This system was created by USGBC members and design and construction experts from cross section of the community. It outlines the criteria for the design and performance of systems in building construction necessary to have an impact on energy consumption, global climate, and occupant health. LEED certification provides a third party verification and validation of a building’s performance. Projects that achieve certification from the USGBC blend environmental, economic, and occupant-oriented performance. Green Buildings, on average, consume 40% less water, use 30% less energy, and produce 30% less greenhouse gas emissions. These buildings cost less to operate and maintain, they are efficient in both energy and water usage, they provide healthier and safer environments for the occupants, and Green Buildings are a physical demonstration of the priorities and commitment of the Owners and Occupants. Additionally, studies have proven that educational buildings designed embracing the green principles of daylighting and indoor air quality have healthier building occupants, improved student academic performance, and

higher teacher and student retention than traditional educational facilities. There are more than 60 billion square feet of existing buildings constructed in the US, so a major emphasis must be placed on the greening of these facilities. Improving the sustainability of our existing buildings can have as much, if not greater, impact on the environment than the creation of new green buildings.

Transforming DeKalb Schools The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conducted a study and found that the average worker spends almost 90% percent of their time indoors. It also found that building-related illnesses cost companies tens of billions of dollars a year. There is no denying that most building occupants prefer to work and learn in an environment that is visually pleasing, has views to the outside, and receives natural light in the work and learning spaces. Furthermore, the current generation of students is concerned with the lasting impact they have on their environment. These students have grown up on the concept of the 3R’s; but their 3R’s are reduce, reuse, and recycle. Healthy and safe learning environments are a core value of the DeKalb County School System. Green facilities are proven to provide healthier learning environments while lowering on going operating expenses.



Green buildings can significantly reduce greenhouse emissions and energy dependence while improving the health and productivity of their occupants. � Every year buildings are responsible for

39% of U.S. CO2 emissions. They use

71% of the nation’s electricity and account for 70% of all landfill waste.

� Green Buildings use less energy, water,

and natural resources, create less waste, and are healthier and more comfortable for the occupants.

� With more than 60 billion square feet of

already constructed buildings in the marketplace, greening existing buildings can make a significant contribution.

The approach to greening DCSS’s facilities is multifaceted. The easiest and most logical starting point is with new construction. Arabia Mountain High School started DCSS down the path to sustainable design and construction. Starting with a blank slate is simple. Making smart design choices that take the true life cycle costs of the building into consideration are uncomplicated decisions. Working towards making an existing building sustainable is much more difficult. Our motto is “No Excuses”, and we are up to the challenge.

Arabia Mountain High School LEEDing the Way DCSS returned to its former status as a trail blazer for public educational facilities when it decided to seek LEED Certification for the Arabia Mountain High School. Upon completion, this school will be the first Silver LEED Certified Public High School in the state of Georgia. Once again, DCSS is demonstrating what it means to be Premier.

Arabia Mountain High School is being constructed with minimal additional costs to achieve the LEED Silver Certification under LEED for New Construction. The Silver Level of Certification requires that the project achieve 33 – 38 of the possible 69 points. There are six areas of focus: Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy & Atmosphere, Materials & Resources, Indoor Environmental Quality, and Innovation & Design. The following chart demonstrates the areas where Arabia Mountain High School will be seeking its points for certification. There are additional costs associated with seeking LEED Certification for a project. Not only is there minimal application fee for project registration, there are also additional costs associated with the necessary personnel to document, collect and submit the necessary paperwork associated with the certification process. Therefore, DCSS has chosen not to expend these funds to seek Certification by USGBC for all of our projects. 1 Turner Construction Company 2005 Survey of Green Buildings Refer to Attachment “A” for Standard LEED Checklist.



Arabia Mountain High School Points Toward Certification Sustainable Site

Prerequisite 1 Erosion & Sedimentation Control � Ensure that best practices are being utilized regarding erosion and sediment control during construction

Credit 4 Alternative Transportation � Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms � Parking for Low Emission & Fuel

Efficient Vehicles � Parking Capacity & Carpooling

Credit 6 Storm Water Management � Increase On-site Filtration through Bio-swales

� Utilize Bio-Retention Ponds to cleanse water

Credit 7 Heat Island Reduction � Utilize light colored roofing

Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction � Directional lighting towards ground to not pollute the night sky

Water Efficiency

Credit 1 Water Efficient Landscaping � Only irrigation playfields � Use native planting to eliminate the

need for irrigation

Credit 3 Waste Water Reduction � 30% Reduction � Use fixture sensors, low-flow fixtures,

waterless urinals

Energy & Atmosphere

Prerequisite 1 Fundamental Commissioning � Verification that building elements and systems are installed and calibrated to operate per the Owner’s requirements

Prerequisite 2 Minimum Energy Performance � Ensure that the building achieves a minimum energy performance per applicable codes

Prerequisite 3 CFC Reduction � Meet the current codes regarding the elimination of CFC’s

Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance � Orient building North-South � Provide natural and constructed direct

sunlight and heat shading � Incorporate Low-E Glass � Utilize light colored materials

Credit 3 Additional Commissioning � Independent 3rd

Party Agent to verify and ensure that building elements and systems are designed, installed and calibrated to operate per the Owner’s requirements

Page 74 of 98

Credit 6 Green Power � Use renewable energy sources

Materials & Resources

Prerequisite 1 Collect Recyclables � Establish a recycling program for building occupants

Credit 2 CDL Waste Management � Recycle construction debris

Credit 4 Recycled Content � Specify material with Post-Consumer and Post-Industrial Recycled Content

Credit 5 Local/Regional Materials � Specify materials that are extracted and manufactured within the region

Credit 7 Certified Wood � Encourage environmentally responsible forest management

Indoor Environmental Quality

Prerequisite 1 Minimum IAQ Performance � Ensure that the minimum indoor air quality performance is achieved.

Prerequisite 2 Tobacco Smoke Control � Provide a smoke free environment

Credit 3 Construction IAQ Plan � Reduce air quality contaminants from the construction process

Credit 4 Low Emitting Materials � Specify Low VOC products for adhesives, sealants, paints, coatings, carpet, composite woods

Credit 6 Controllability of Systems � Daylight sensors � Occupancy sensors � Dimmers � Task Lighting

Credit 7 Thermal Comfort � Individual Thermostatic controls

Credit 8 Daylight & Views � Provide natural light and views to majority of regularly occupied spaces

Innovation & Design

Credit 3 Utilization of the School as a Teaching Tool

� Ensure that the facility can teach the occupants and community regarding the benefits of sustainability

Credit 4 Use of a LEED Accredited Professional

� Utilize a LEED AP on the project

Since the Arabia Mountain High School project was registered for LEED certification, the USGBC has created a new rating system exclusively focused on School Construction. LEED for Schools have the same six areas of concentration as the LEED for New Construction system. There are two new prerequisites for site assessment and minimum acoustical performance. LEED for Schools also has an opportunity to receive a

maximum of 79 possible points. This rating system will serve as the bench mark against which all future new construction projects will be measured

Page 75 of 98

Green Building Concepts Incorporated into the Dunwoody/ Chamblee Area Elementary School The Dunwoody/Chamblee Area Elementary School is the first full new construction project to be designed post-Arabia Mountain High School. This project is not seeking LEED certification, but the following criteria have been incorporated into the design: o Bike Racks o Parking for Low Emission & Fuel Efficient

Vehicles o Parking for Carpooling o Light Colored Roofing Material o Native Plantings and No Irrigation o Fixture Sensors o Low Flow Fixtures o North-South Building Orientation o Low E-Glass o Exterior Shading to reduce solar heat

gain and glare o Building Occupant Recycling Program o Encourage Construction Waster

Recycling o Specification of Recycled Content

Building Materials and Local/Regional Materials

o Specification of Low VOC Materials o Daylighting in all occupied rooms with

multiple switching capabilities o High Performance building envelope o Individual HVAC units in each classroom o Utilization of Air Filtration System to

cleanse air and reduce the amount of unconditioned air entering the system

o Installation of an Energy Management System

Bike Racks

Fuel Efficient Vehicles

Carpooling

Incorporating LEED Concepts into Future Projects

Page 76 of 98

The Future of Premier DeKalb

It is the intention of DCSS to embrace Sustainable Design and Green Building principles on all future projects regardless of whether or not we seek third party verification. To that end, all future new construction projects for DCSS will include the following items in their design: o Orientation of Building to Optimize North-

South benefit o Bike Racks o Parking for Low Emission & Fuel Efficient

Vehicles and Carpooling o Light Colored Roofing Material and

Paving to reduce Heat Island Effect o Utilization of Bioswales and Bioretention

systems to cleanse runoff o Native Plantings and no Irrigation o Plumbing Fixture Sensors & Low Flow

Fixtures o Low E-Glass o Natural and Constructed Exterior

Shading to reduce solar heat gain and glare

o Building Occupant Recycling Program o Encourage Construction Waste

Recycling o Specification of Low VOC Materials o Utilization of Locally Extracted and

Manufactured Products o Daylighting in all occupied rooms with

multiple switching capabilities o Energy Efficient Lighting Fixtures and

Lamps o High Performance building envelope o Standardization of HVAC System to allow

maximum efficiency o Utilization of an Energy Management

System New construction is a very small percentage of the work to be completed in the DCSS Building and Facilities program. Another significant portion of the work to be completed is additions to existing buildings. Additions will follow the tenets outlined for new construction.

Major renovations make up a large segment of the projects in the program. Additionally, the conversion of all of our facilities to being sustainable is integral to the Greening of DCSS. The following principles will be incorporated into all major renovations and conversions of existing facilities: o Replacement of existing glass and

glazing with double paned construction and energy efficient glazing

o Light Colored Roofing Material and Paving to reduce Heat Island Effect

o Conversion of Plantings to Native Species which require less dependence on irrigation systems

o Building Occupant Recycling Program o Implementation of a Green Cleaning

Program o Specification of Low VOC Materials o Increased Acoustical Performance o Daylighting in all occupied rooms with

multiple switching capabilities o Installation of Lighting and HVAC

Computerized Monitoring and Control Systems

o Energy Efficient Lighting Fixtures and Lamps

o Standardization of HVAC System to allow maximum efficiency

o Inclusion of Air Filtration Systems to cleanse the air and meet the fresh air requirements

o Installation of low flow and water efficient fixtures

“It’s not easy being green”

Kermit the Frog

Page 77 of 98

Standardization of Systems and Products To ensure that these principles are being incorporated into all future projects consistently, DCSS has created Standardization Committees. These Committees will be comprised of a cross section of DCSS staff members and outside industry experts. An Independent Consultant will facilitate the process and prepare the final Standardized Guide Specifications. The Committees will evaluate the systems and products to standardize on the following criteria: o Life Cycle Costs o Ease of Training and Maintenance o Sustainability and Environmental Impact Each Committee will focus on one of the four areas of concentration: Building, Envelope, Architectural Fixtures, Mechanical Systems & Plumbing Fixtures, and Electrical Systems & Kitchen Equipment. There are many benefits to the standardization of our systems and products. We expect to see fiscal benefit due to the reduction in our needed Warehouse inventory, response time benefit due materials being in stock and not waiting for these items to be ordered, and expertise benefit due to fewer systems being maintained and more specialized training for fewer systems.

Page 78 of 98

Financial Impact of “Going Green” A national study completed recently entitled “Greening America’s Schools: Costs and Benefits” is indicative of the findings regarding green school construction. The major findings of the study were: � Green Schools save an average of $70

per square foot in operating expense for and initial increase of capital outlay of $3 per square foot.

� Green Schools require 33% less

energy than a typical new facility and create approximately 600,000 pounds less greenhouse gas emissions yearly.

� Green Schools have better indoor air

quality which reduces the instances of asthma by 38.5%.

� Green Schools have far superior

individual thermal comfort and control which can raise occupant productivity almost 15%.

� Green Schools have an average daily

attendance of 5% to 15% better than a conventionally constructed school.

� Green Schools are believed to help

attract and retain teachers.

Cleaner Schools = Happier Teachers

Average Daily Attendance Increase

Reduction of Greenhouse gas emissions

Green Facilities Impact the

Teachers, Students and Environment

Greening our existing facilities has a greater financial challenge. As we move forward with the HVAC Replacement projects, they will include premium costs associated with the increased requirements to meet the energy and air quality codes. DCSS has no choice in whether or not we meet these codes. The codes are required by the governmental regulatory agencies that have jurisdiction over construction regulations. We realize and accept that an increase in our up-front costs will result in a decrease in our operational budgets.


Page 79 of 98

“All DeKalb schools are dedicated to giving every student the best possible education through an intensive core curriculum and specialized, challenging instructional and career programs. DCSS is striving to become the Premier K-12 school system of choice and is constantly improving and refining instruction and management to make it as effective, productive, and economical as possible”. - DeKalb County School System, Georgia


Page 80 of 98

In the United States almost 90% of the commercial buildings are over ten years old. In the DeKalb County School System (DCSS) this statistic is much worse. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of our facilities are over forty years old. Yet, most energy efficient lighting products have only been developed within the last ten years. Lighting in our facilities constitutes approximately 65% of our energy bills. By installing high efficiency lighting in every facility in our District, our electricity bills could be lowered by 20% to 30%. This equates to approximately $2,000,000 annually. The DCSS Lighting Improvement Plan has been created in response to the availability of new energy efficient products and the desire to be fiscally responsible with our limited operating dollars. Over the past two years, we have been converting our schools and centers to energy efficient lighting on a limited project by project basis. As facilities have been identified for and received HVAC and Ceiling Replacements, these buildings have also received lighting improvements. These improvements have included lighting re-designs to provide the necessary code compliant lighting levels for all locations and the replacement of fixtures to energy efficient bulbs and fixtures. The Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) identifies another twenty-five schools and centers for these upgrades. The Lighting Improvement Plan Atlanta Public Schools (APS) has recently had a tremendous success with the conversion of all of their facilities to energy efficient lighting. The DCSS Lighting Improvement Plan is modeled after the APS program. Since DCSS’s personnel is already taxed trying to maintain and repair the existing systems, DCSS will issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to hire outside firms to assist with the implementation of the Lighting Improvement Plan. The first step in the Lighting Improvement Plan requires the completion of a Comprehensive Lighting Energy Audit (CLEA) for: • Every school and center that has not undergone a

lighting replacement project in the last five years; • Any school or center that has received only a partial

facility lighting replacement in the last five years; • Any school or center that was built more than five

years ago.

The CLEA will be completed by an Energy Service Company (ESCO). The ESCO will conduct on-site surveys of all identified facilities and will interview all necessary DCSS personnel to identify the operating characteristics of the facilities and the existing equipment and systems. This information will be utilized to create a CLEA report which will provide a calculation of the baseline energy use of the facility and a description of the physical conditions, equipment counts, nameplate data, and control strategies currently is use at the facility. The energy use allocation will be based upon generally accepted engineering practices and will be reconciled with the historic usage of energy at the facility. Based upon information gathered, the


Page 81 of 98

ESCO will recommend measures to be completed to improve the lighting energy efficiency of the facility. The final CLEA report will identify all proposed energy conservation measures for the facility along with the implementation costs, maintenance costs, useful life of the measure, life cycle cost including estimated time of payback, projected annual energy demand, and estimated energy savings. The CLEA reports for all facilities will be used to create and prioritize the list of lighting improvement projects. Once the projects have been identified and prioritized, DCSS will move to the implementation phase of the Lighting Improvements Plan. Projects already slated as improvements under the CIP will be completed as part of the CIP. All other projects will be grouped and phased based upon the CLEA reports. The first projects will be recommended for completion as Local School Priority Requests. If additional funds are needed, budget improvements will be submitted for consideration in future budget cycles. Financial Benefits of the Lighting Improvement Plan Electricity represents over 80% of the total life cycle costs for lighting systems and is a significant portion of the total electricity bills for DCSS. The following chart illustrates the annual electric consumption and costs over the past four years. Implementing the Lighting Improvement Plan will reduce electrical consumption by $0.10 to $0.25 per square foot for each facility. The reduction of total watts will also reduce the cooling demand on the HVAC system required to cool the lighting heat load and will result in electrical energy savings of 10% to 15%. The addition of occupancy sensors will maximize the energy savings by turning lights off in unoccupied spaces.

Year Total Cost Est. Annual Energy Savings

2004 $1,342,876 $ 246,165 2005 $2,802,868 $ 696, 611 2006 $4,806,514 $1,113,284 2007 $4,440,154 $ 666,620

Total (4 years) $13,392,412 $2,722,680

Below is the estimated annual energy savings opportunity for DCSS from the Lighting Improvement Plan.

DeKalb County School System

School Quantity Est. Annual Energy Savings

High 22 $865,000 Middle 20 $350,000

Elementary 85 $980,000 Centers 20 $115,000

Total $2,310,000

Maintenance costs will also be significantly lower after implementing the Lighting Improvement Plan.


Page 82 of 98

The current fluorescent lighting systems use approximately 180,000 ballasts and represent a significant annual maintenance cost to replace failing components. The Lighting Improvement Plan will impact maintenance cost in two ways: 1. The installation of new electronic ballasts will reduce the

quantity of ballasts by 50,000 ballasts and effectively reduce the number of components requiring maintenance by approximately 30%.

2. The newly installed electronic ballasts will carry a

manufacturer’s warranty of five years eliminating the cost of replacement ballasts for the first five years after the completion of the Lighting Improvement Plan. If you assume that only 10% of the existing ballasts are failing annually, then the savings for the first five years would be approximately $450,000 annually.

There are approximately 600,000 fluorescent lamps in use by DCSS facilities. The lamp population is maintained on an as-needed basis or “spot relamped” when a lamp is out. The existing lamps have an average rated life of 20,000 hours and the total population is estimated to fail at 20-25% per year under the current maintenance program. The annual lamp replacement is approximately 120,000 per year resulting in an operational expense of excess of $250,000, including the labor to replace the bulb. Upon completion of the Lighting Improvement Program, the new fluorescent lamps will have rated life of 24,000 to 30,000 hours and therefore have a longer scheduled replacement period. The designs using the new lamps will reduce the population of lamps by 70,000 lamps, thus reducing the number of bulbs requiring future maintenance. Lastly, the lamps carry a two year warranty and will eliminate the lamp replacement costs for the first two years after the completion of the Lighting Improvement Plan. Environmental Benefits Lighting upgrades produce significant environmental benefits and are an integral step in the sustainable design in today’s school facilities. A few of the key environmental highlights are:

o Energy reduction decreases the emissions of greenhouse gases produced in electricity generation.

o Removing and recycling old ballast

containing PCB’s removes potential hazardous materials from the waste stream.

o Electronic ballast do not contain PCB’s.

o Removing and recycling the older lamp technologies prevents mercury from entering the waste stream.

o New fluorescent lamps have lower

mercury content.

o Longer life light bulbs mean less future waste.

o Reduction of ballasts and lamps means

less future waste.


Page 83 of 98

First Cost Estimate The following projects were or will be completed as a part of the SPLOST II funding:

• Avondale ES • Dunarie ES • Hightower ES • Jolly ES • McNair ES • Oakview ES

• Snapfinger ES • Chamblee MS • Henderson MS • Peachtree MS • Sequoyah MS • Shamrock MS

• Stone Mountain MS • Tucker MS • Arabia Mountain HS • Avondale HS • Lakeside HS • Margaret Harris HS

• McNair HS • Miller Grove HS • SW DeKalb HS • Towers HS

The following projects are included in the current Capital Improvements Plan:

• Fairington ES • Hambrick ES • Hooper Alexander ES • Indian Creek ES • Knollwood ES • McLendon ES • Midvale ES

• Montgomery ES • Rockbridge ES • Stone Mill ES • Stone Mountain ES • Vanderlyn ES • Woodward ES • Cedar Grove HS

• Clarkston HS • Columbia HS • Cross Keys HS • Druid Hills HS • Dunwoody HS • Redan HS • Stone Mountain HS

• Tucker HS • Freeman

Building A/B • Mountain

Industrial Center • Sam Moss Center • Warren Tech

The following projects would require upgrades under this Lighting Improvement Plan:

• Allgood ES • Ashford Park ES • Atherton ES • Austin ES • Bob Mathis ES • Briarlake ES • Briar Vista ES • Brockett ES • Browns Mill ES • Canby Lane ES • Cary Reynolds ES • Cedar Grove ES • Chapel Hill ES • Chestnut ES • Clifton ES • Columbia ES • Dresden ES • Edward L. Bouie Sr.

Theme ES • Eldridge L. Miller ES • Fernbank ES • Forrest Hills ES • Glen Haven ES

• Gresham Park ES • Hawthorne ES • Henderson Mill ES • Huntley Hills ES • Idlewood ES • Kelley Lake ES • Kingsley ES • Kittredge Magnet • Laurel Ridge • Livsey ES • Marbut Theme • Meadowview ES • Medlock ES • Midway ES • Montclair ES • Murphy Candler ES • Nancy Creek ES • Narvie Harris ES • Oakcliff ES • Panola Way ES • Peachcrest ES • Pine Ridge ES • Pleasantdale ES

• Rainbow ES • Redan ES • Robert Shaw Theme • Rock Chapel ES • Sagamore Hills ES • Shadow Rock ES • Sky Haven ES • Smoke Rise ES • Terry Mill ES • Tilson ES • Toney ES • Wadsworth ES • Woodridge ES • Wymbrooke ES • Avondale MS • Cedar Grove MS • Champion Theme • Chapel Hill MS • Columbia MS • Freedom MS • Lithonia HS • M. M. Bethune MS • Miller Grove MS

• Redan MS • Ronald E. McNair MS • Salem MS • Stephenson MS • Chamblee HS • DeKalb Technology South • Lithonia HS • MLK HS • Redan HS • Stephenson HS • Clarkston Area Office • Coralwood • DeKalb Transition • Drivers Ed North • Drivers Ed South • Eagle Woods Academy • Fernbank Science • Heritage Center • William Bradley Bryant Center

The estimated costs for these projects are $4.50 per square foot at 7,430,808 square feet (90 locations) which equates to $33,393,636. In summary, implementing a lighting improvement program across the DCSS would significantly enhance the learning environment, save money through reduced energy use and lower maintenance costs and improve our environment for future generations.


Page 84 of 98


Page 85 of 98

The New 3R’s: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle DCSS’s System-Wide Recycling Program Today, every state and most metropolitan cities in the U.S. have implemented a highly-structured recycling program to reduce the environmental impact of growing populations and increased waste production. In the simplest terms, recycling is taking materials from products you have finished using and making brand new products with them. While not all products can be recycled, many of the products utilized by the DeKalb County School System (DCSS) can be recycled. The time has come for DCSS to join the Green Revolution and implement its own recycling/waste reduction program system-wide. DCSS purchases over 15 million Styrofoam trays annually; every month we utilize more than 2.1 million sheets of paper; every day hundreds of corrugated boxes are used to transfer books, food products and other miscellaneous items across the county. All of these items should be recycled, yet they are thrown away. Our landfills are being filled at an alarming rate. Also, DCSS is being charged sanitation fees for these items. If properly sorted and disposed of, we can reduce our costs by recycling these items. While many DCSS schools recycle newspapers, cardboard, collect aluminum cans, etc. on a school-by-school basis, it is now time for us to implement a system-wide recycling program. August 2008 will not only see the start of a new school year for DCSS, it will also kick off the new 3R’s Campaign: Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle. On August 1, 2008, DCSS will implement of the system-wide Recycling Program.

All schools and centers will start the new school year with at least one form of recycling. The Recycling Program will also educate every student, staff member, maintenance personnel, and the local community of the benefits and environmental impact of recycling. The ultimate measurement of success will be the creation of a generation of young adults who are knowledgeable and concerned about the impact their actions have on the future of the planet and the sustainability of our resources.

“Premier DeKalb Promotes Clean and Healthy Learning Environments:

Recycling Program Page 86 of 98

The Impact of Recycling While there are more trees in the U.S. today than there were 75 years ago and our forest resources are abundant, adding recycled fibers to new wood fiber is a good way to stretch and sustain our forest resources. Every year more than 4,000,000 tons of paper, plastic, metal, and glass are deposited into Georgia’s landfills. Recycling other products such as plastics, glass, polystyrene foam (Styrofoam), cardboard, and aluminum also helps to control waste disposal problems. For every ton of paper recovered by recycling, about 17 trees and 3 cubic yards of landfill space are saved.

Greenhouse gases contribute to global climate changes. The fourteen warmest years on record have all occurred since 1980. The warmest year ever recorded globally was 1998. According to members of the scientific community, this is a direct result of global warming and increased greenhouse gas emissions. Contributing factors to greenhouse gas emissions are the methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases which are emitted from landfills and carbon dioxide which is produced by the burning of fossil fuels or gas.

February, 2008

385.76

One Year Ago February, 2007

Five Years Ago February, 2003

10 Years Ago February, 1998



383.86 375.62 365.82 342.68 323.15

The increase in carbon dioxide, as recorded by the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii over the last 40 years, has contributed significantly to the depletion of the ozone layer which allows sunlight to enter the atmosphere freely. When sunlight strikes the earth’s surface, some of it is reflected back towards space as infrared radiation/heat. Greenhouse gases absorb this infrared radiation and trap the heat in the atmosphere. Over time, the amount of energy sent from the sun to the earth’s surface should be about the same as the amount of energy radiated back into space, leaving the temperature of the earth’s surface roughly constant. As evident in recent years, the temperatures in both the winter and summer have been above average causing unseasonably warm weather, changes in sea levels, and drought conditions. Previous Recycling Pilot Program In the absence of a uniform recycling program system-wide, several schools and centers participated in a small scale recycling pilot program. The program included the Sam A. Moss Service Center, the William Bradley Bryant Technology

Center, Redan High School, Shamrock Middle School, and Marbut Elementary School. The pilot program ran from March 2006 to December 2007 and produced little or no collectible data. The products that were being recycled from those locations were paper and cardboard. Although paper recycling collection bins have been set up to collect discarded recyclable paper and waste materials throughout the school system, very little post consumption collection information was obtained. The pilot program was received well by the building administrators at each location. But, due to minimal end user training and the lack of motivation or incentives to participate by students and staff, the full potential of the recycling program was not achieved.



The New & Improved Recycling Program Recycling is more popular now than democracy. A recent survey showed that more people recycled than voted in the 1996 presidential election. Given the demand for environmental and social consciousness, DCSS is implementing a new and improved Recycling Program in our schools and centers effective with the start of the 2008-2009 School Year. DCSS is one of the largest contributors of waste to the local landfills. On a monthly basis, we dump in excess of 87,000 cubic yards of waste in our landfill. The new Recycling Program has two primary functions. First, the program will educate students and staff on the environmental impacts of recycling and their social responsibility in handling waste. Secondly, the program will encourage waste management at all of our sites. Reduce Management of our waste has a direct relation to the amount of money spent each year on sanitation costs. Waste management helps to avoid consumption of virgin resources and the need to handle and transport products such as trash or recyclables. To implement a reduction in the amount of waste created, DCSS will encourage all employees to use e-mail instead of printing paper documents, to get off "junk" mail lists, and to share subscriptions in lieu of receiving multiple copies of the same magazines. Through a decrease in the volume of waste, a significant reduction in sanitation operating costs will occur. Reuse The reuse of materials is one area in which DCSS is currently rather proficient. All of the textbooks utilized in the instruction of our students are reused year after year until

such time that the books either become out dated or unusable due to wear. Once a book has become unusable, it is then recycled. There are other opportunities available for reusing materials in DCSS, but unfortunately the most obvious choices come with a trade off of increased water consumption. Given the current drought situation, these items are not viable options. However, the Recycling Committee will investigate other opportunities. Recycle Recycling has two components: the recycling of our post-consumer waste and the purchase of products made with recycled content. DCSS will concentrate on the recycling of post-consumer items such as paper, cardboard, and Styrofoam trays. We will also incorporate the use of recycled products such as railroad ties, roofing shingles, and compost. Additionally, all administrative offices will switch to recycled paper products.



Implementation of the Recycling Program The Recycling Program will be implemented in multiple phases. During the roll-out of the program in August, recyclable items such as Xerox paper, newspapers, magazines, and books will be collected from all of DCSS’s administrative locations. In addition, an initial group of eighteen schools (6 elementary, 6 middle, and 6 high schools) will collect and recycle Styrofoam food trays. The collection of paper products will start with the following administrative offices: the Freeman Center, William Bradley Bryant Technology Center, the Clarkston Center, and the Sam A. Moss Service Center for a period of six months. During this time, a Recycling Committee will be formed and data will be collected and analyzed to establish the best practices to move forward with paper recycling at all locations. Beginning in August, the Warehouse Department will purchase recycled content paper for use in all administrative offices. The Plant Services Department will begin utilizing recycled products in the on-going maintenance and repair to our existing facilities. The effectiveness of these products will also be evaluated by the Recycling Committee to determine if any changes need to be made. The success of this Recycling Program will only be achieved through the education and training of students, teachers, administrators, and staff on the proper collection and disposal of materials to be recycled. This effort will be overseen by a system-wide Recycling Council. Extensive training will occur at each facility through a program facilitated by individuals from, but not limited to, manufacturer representatives, industry and community leaders, videos, literature, and in-house experts. Training sessions will be documented and recorded using the Green Day Certificate. (Refer to Attachment A, Green Day Certificate.) Training of staff and students will be done at no cost to DCSS. Local organizations and businesses exists that will facilitate the training.



The Recycling Committee and Council Recycling Committees will be created to oversee the implementation and documentation of the Recycling Program locally. They will be responsible for educating and training all stakeholders and for monitoring the compliance with the program. They will also have direct reporting responsibility to the Recycling Council. Quarterly meetings will occur between the Recycling Council and the local/site based Recycling Committees to ensure that the guidelines of the program have been adequately followed. Prior to implementing any subsequent phases of the Recycling Program, the Recycling Committees and Council will evaluate the first phase to determine if any modifications are needed. The Recycling Program will only be successful if we learn from both our successes and our failures. The Recycling Committee will evaluate the First Phase of the Recycle Program with the following nine key steps for achieving success: 1. Is the assembled team aggressive and

enthusiastic?

a. Does the team include the active participation of the custodial staff, administrators, parents, teachers, community members, local businesses, and existing recycling organizations (Keep Georgia Beautiful, Earth’s 911, Earth-Watch, Keep DeKalb Beautiful, etc.)?

2. Has the waste in the building been properly analyzed?

a. Is the assessment of the current

processes and what is being thrown away accurate? Are all of the items that can be recycled being collected and properly disposed?

b. Is there any additional trash

collection methods needed? 3. Is the hauler or collector of the

recyclable materials completing the task to the satisfaction of the user?

a. Is communication necessary with

the local recycling company, manufacturers, and/or processors to improve the process or products?

4. Is the recycling collection and storage process effective and satisfactory?

a. Are the collection locations for

recyclables at each school effective? Are additional locations or modifications to the existing locations needed?

b. Are the materials getting from

collection locations to storage locations in a timely and sanitary manner?

5. Are the types of collection containers

used working for the facility?

a. Are modifications needed to the indoor collection containers?

b. Are modifications needed to the

outside collection containers? c. Are the collection containers

properly sized?

6. Are the locations of recyclable material collections effective?

a. Is more storage needed indoors or

outdoors? b. Are the materials being kept dry? c. Are the locations accessible to

students, staff, and the collector?

RECYCLING IN THE WORKPLACE is a responsibility that every business needs to accept. Set the example… commit to improve our environment.



7. Has everyone been properly educated on the Recycling Program? Has the Recycling Program being adequately promoted?

a. Are the teams and schools

becoming more environmentally conscious?

b. Have unique ways of promoting the

Recycling Program been developed?

c. Is everyone being educated on the

environmental impact of the Recycling Program?

8. Is this phase of the Recycling Program

resulting in a measurable impact?

a. Is data being collected and recorded? Does the data demonstrate the anticipated reductions? If not, why?

9. Does the evaluation of the data support

the expansion of the program?

a. Are modifications necessary prior to expanding the program?

b. Has the successes of the program

been properly celebrated? c. Have the positive impacts that can

be obtained, when a school and a community unite to achieve one objective, been communicated?

If the Recycling Committee identifies any items that are not in compliance with the Recycling Program, they will analyze the item to determine the best practice for bringing it back into compliance. Any item, such as metal, aluminum, plastic, and wood, which is not currently included in the Recycling Program, will be investigated for inclusion in the next phases of the Recycling Program.

The Benefits of DCSS’s Recycling Program Many of the items and products that we purchase and use today can be recycled. Every one of the estimated 15 million Styrofoam trays DCSS uses annually for breakfast and lunch everyday can be recycled into new FDA approved Styrofoam trays and other products. All of the corrugated boxes that we receive products in and use to transfer materials from school to school can be recycled into new boxes. The tons of newspapers, books, magazines, and copy paper can be recycled into new paper products. In 1999 nearly 47.3 million tons of paper and paperboard products were recovered for recycling in the U.S. Today, that number has risen to over 63 million tons. DCSS is committed to collecting all of the available recyclable materials from every school and administrative location. The collection and proper disposal of the identified materials will reduce the environmental impact DCSS has on the Seminole landfill, as well as reduce our contribution to the production of greenhouse gas emissions. The results of the Recycling Program are all positive. DCSS’s program will encourage students and staff to be more aware of the environment and the effect they have in sustaining a more clean and healthy learning environment.



There are multiple benefits of the DCSS Recycling Program.

1. The reduction in the amount of waste that enters the DeKalb County Seminole Landfill, DeKalb County’s only landfill.

2. The encouragement of good

stewardship of the earth and support of the state approved curriculum as outlined by the Georgia Professional Standards Commission.

3. The substantial saving of dollars through

the completion of waste audits at each location. Decreasing the amount of non-recycled waste that is picked up will reduce the need for multiple trash bins at each location. A reduction in the amount of bins will subsequently reduce our waste removal expenses.

4. The potential income from rebates that

is available from local recyclers. These will become revenue generators for the local school and it’s Parent Teacher Student Association (PTSA).

Research shows that in an average year DCSS purchases in excess of five thousand cases of Xerox paper. This translates into more than 25 million sheets of paper entering our landfills annually. Everyday, each of our media centers receives more than a dozen newspapers and magazines. System-wide our media centers receive over nine thousand newspapers and magazines each week. All of those items can be recycled into new items and materials.

DCSS currently uses over 15 million Styrofoam trays each year. The collection of these Styrofoam trays from our cafeterias will have an immediate impact for the following reasons: 1. Trays are concentrated in one area and

will not require the collectors to travel throughout the entire building to collect them.

2. Students and custodial personnel will

need to make only minor adjustments to the current process.

3. Trays will be bagged and stored for

collection by the vendor. This will reduces the amount of waste that goes into the dumpsters or compactors everyday.

4. Vendor participation will be high.

DCSS will model our program after the highly successful program at Gwinnett County Schools.

5. The largest volume of waste that goes

into the dumpsters/compactors everyday comes from the kitchen and cafeteria areas. Styrofoam trays, due to their size and shape, make up a majority of this waste.

6. If the trays are removed from the

dumpsters, it is probable that one or more dumpsters can be removed from each school and center. By reducing the amount of waste we send to the landfill, DCSS can also expect to realize a reduction in the cost of the bills from DeKalb County Sanitation.



The Financial Benefit of DCSS’s Recycling Program The initial cost to implement the Recycling Program is minimal when compared to the long-term effects, both socially and environmentally. A review of the current waste removal methods used by DCSS revealed the use of only two systems: trash compactors and waste dumpsters. At seventy-one (71) of our locations, we have Stribling trash compactors. At the remaining schools and centers, we have DeKalb County Sanitation waste dumpsters. DCSS pays an annual fee of $1,201,654.08 to DeKalb County Sanitation for the removal of waste from 145 waste dumpsters. There are several variables in the DeKalb County Sanitation billing plan: 1. Container size

Size varies from a six-yard container to an eight-yard container.

2. Frequency of pick up

Frequency in which trash is picked up can be from one day a week to five days

a week. Most locations have pick ups on five days of the week.

3. Number of containers

The number of containers at our schools and centers vary from one to five. The number of containers should have a direct correlation to the number of students at a school and the amount of waste to be disposed.

4. Cost of container service

The cost to have service is directly related to the size and frequency of service.

Size Frequency of pick up Cost per pick up (each)

6 yard container 1 time a week $123.50

2 times a week $247.00




8 yard container 1 time a week $164.67







DCSS is billed on a monthly basis; therefore, even on days that school is not in session we still pay for waste removal. There is a minimal charge of $75 to have a waste dumpster removed by DeKalb County Sanitation. A recent limited waste management audit revealed that several schools have too many waste containers, under sized containers, or pick ups are too frequent to maximize the utilization of the container on-site. The results of this audit indicate that a reallocation of containers could provide an immediate cost savings to DCSS. While there is a minimal charge of $75 dollars for the removal of an existing container, the savings will be immediate. It is also evident that an in-depth waste management audit of all schools and centers must be completed to determine the best waste removal process and frequency. The savings from this effort will pay for the new recycling containers. A preliminary estimate indicates that approximately $375,000 can be saved annually by more efficiently utilizing our dumpsters and eliminating unneeded pick-ups and containers. DCSS is installing trash compactors at all new schools. The change out of dumpsters to compactors is another area for investigation. There is a significant capital outlay associated with the installation of compactors, due to the costs associated with initial purchase of the compactor; the installation of the support items of the compactor such as concrete pads, electrical service, sanitary sewer connections, and grease trap installation; and the maintenance of the compactor. A feasibility study is underway to determine the life cycle costs associated with the installation of compactors at all of our schools and centers.



Of the nine metropolitan school districts, Gwinnett County Public School System is the only system that has a system-wide program for recycling. Other local districts have satellite or minor initiatives to recycle. While the Gwinnett County Public School System has an initiative to collect paper and paperboard products, their primary focus at this time is the collection of the Styrofoam trays that are used in the cafeteria. Two years ago Gwinnett County Public School began an initiative where twice a day, the Styrofoam trays in most of the district’s schools are collected and bagged. At the end of each day, the bagged trays are delivered to a central collection location. While the custodial staff supervises the collection process in each school, the students do the actual stacking and collection of the trays at the end of each lunch period. The program has received an over-whelming acceptance by the central office and building administrators. Through training and constant monitoring, the students, staff, and parents/community have bought into the idea of environmental consciousness. The bagged trays are stored in a trailer until Evergreen Partnering Group picks them up for recycling on a weekly basis. Evergreen then cleans and recycles the trays into new trays and other materials. Gwinnett County Public Schools has closed the loop even further by purchasing recycled Styrofoam trays at a reduced price from Southeast Paper Inc., which is the same vendor from whom DCSS currently purchases our trays. In addition to the social and environmental benefits they have obtained, Gwinnett County Public Schools has also reduced their waste cost by 30% since removing the trays from the dumpsters. DCSS’s will incur costs associated with collecting the Styrofoam trays from each school and collecting paper products from our administrative locations during phase one but, it will be minimal.

The cost will be limited to: 1. One additional case of trash bags per

month per school 2. Collection bins for the office areas 3. Advertising cost to print signage and

directions The use of recycled paper products is a cost effective alternative to purchasing new paper product. The cost to utilize recycled paper products has dropped dramatically since the mid-90s. The manufacturing process has improved and recyclable materials are in greater quantity; therefore, prices have been reduced to the consumer. The premium cost to purchase recycled paper to DCSS is $5.00/case or approximately $30,000 per year. Avoiding consumption of one ton of paper from virgin fiber saves the fiber equivalent of 17 trees and prevents air and water pollution. DCSS purchases approximately 2,000 tons of recyclable material each year. This is the fiber equivalent of 34,000 trees! Buying paper from recycled fiber saves fiber and resources.



The financial impact to DCSS for implementing the Recycling Program is outlined in the cart below. The initial capital outlay will be offset by the savings realized from the dumpster credit. After the first year, DCSS will realize revenue from the recycling of our waste as outlined in this plan.

Net Savings $227,000

The up-side to recycling and waste management is bright for the DeKalb County School System. Under the guidance of an enthusiastic Recycling Committee and the Superintendent’s Leadership Team, the financial, social, and environmental rewards will mitigate the initial investments.

Annual Cost Annual Savings

Styrofoam Tray Recycling $15,000 Additional Trash Bags $20,000 Additional Recycling Containers $33,000 Advertising and Promotion $50,000 Recycled Paper Premium $30,000 Dumpster/Waste Audit Modifications $375,000 Total $148,000 $375,000



GGRREEEENN DD AA YY CC EE RR TT II FF II CC AA TT EE

This is to certify that

__________________

has helped keep our planet and school system healthy and beautiful by:

______________________________________________

School Name

_____________________________________________________

Facilitator’s Signature Date

� Participating in the DeKalb County School System’s Going Green recycling workshop

� Volunteering in the school’s recycling campaign



AUTHOR APPENDIX DEKALB COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM

“Going Green” Promoting Clean and Healthy Learning Environments

a. DeKalb County School System

� Planning Green Facilities created by Amy Sue Mann, Preconstruction Manager and Patricia A. Pope, Chief Operations Officer

� Green Cleaning created by Harold Lewis, Assistant Director of Maintenance and Patricia A. Pope, Chief Operations

Officer � Water Conservation Plan created by Michael Worthington, Assistant Director of Facilities and Amy Sue Mann,

Preconstruction Manager

� Recycling Program created by Harold Lewis, Assistant Director of Maintenance

� Utilities Analysis created by Michael Worthington, Assistant Director of Facilities and Harold Lewis, Assistant Director of Maintenance

� Training of Staff created by Patricia A. Pope, Chief Operations Officer

� Standardization created by Patricia A. Pope, Chief Operations Officer

b. Other Resources

� Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), www.epa.gov

� “Greening American Schools, Costs and Benefits, www.usgbc.com/greening

� US Green Building Council, www.usgbc.com

� LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, www.usgbc.com/LEED

� “The Quick & Easy Guide to Green Cleaning in Schools”, www.healthyschools.org



� “Water Matters: News and Information from DeKalb County Department of Management”, www.dekalbwatershed.com

� “Green Cleaning” A Comprehensive Guide to a Safer and More Environmentally Preferable Working Environment”,

www.wpbaywest.com

� Rio Rancho Public Schools Facility Departments Green Building Plan � Montgomery County Public School HHPC Plan

� Gwinnett County School System, www.gwinnett.k12.ga.us

� Atlanta Public School System, www.atlanta.k12.ga.us

� Making Schools Green, A Supplement to School Planning & Management

� HYPERLINK "http://www.webspm.com" �www.webspm.com�www.webspm.com

� Green Buildings Research White Paper, � HYPERLINK "http://www.bdcnetwork.com" �www.bdcnetwork.com�www.bdcnetwork.com

� Turner Construction: Building Green, www.turnerconstruction.com/greenbuildings

� Turner Construction Company 2005 Survey of Green Buildings

cÜxÅ|xÜ Wx^tÄu |á ÂZÉ|Çz ZÜxxÇÊ 75 talks about the school LE… · Going Green...

Documents

Transcript of cÜxÅ|xÜ Wx^tÄu |á ÂZÉ|Çz ZÜxxÇÊ 75 talks about the school LE… · Going Green...