Addendum 1.pdf

1600 Battle Creek Road

Morrow, GA 30260

JONESBORO RPS IMPROVEMENTS

ADDENDUM 1

Date Friday, April 19, 2024

Bid Number 2024-WP-12

Pre-Bid Meeting Tuesday, April 23, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. local time

Bid Opening Tuesday, May 7, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. local time

ADDENDUM MUST BE SIGNED AND INCLUDED IN YOUR BID SUBMITTAL

32457-027 Jonesboro RPS Improvements-1 00 91 13.01 04/19/2024 Addendum 1

SECTION 00 91 13.01

ADDENDUM 1

PART 1 – REVISIONS TO THE PROJECT MANUAL

The following REVISIONS shall be incorporated into the PROJECT MANUAL for the above-referenced project:

A. Section 01 14 00, Coordination with Owner’s Operations

1. Part 1.06-B(5) shall be revised as follows: “Draining and Cleaning of Tanks and Water Mains: Unless otherwise specified, Owner will drain the existing ground storage tanks at beginning of prior to shutdowns that require tank draining...”

2. Shutdown 7 described in Table 01 14 00-B shall be removed from the contract.

3. For Shutdown 8, Temporary Systems Required to Perform Shutdown column, remove “One 30-inch line stop” from the contract.

4. Add the following row to Table 01 14 00-B:

Noah’s

Ark RPS

To install the proposed surge anticipator valves and gate valves

GST #1

All pumps in

Building #1

GST #2

All pumps in

Building #2

- 8 hours

B. Section 01 75 00, Checkout and Startup Procedures

1. Part 1.02-C(2)c(2) shall be revised as follows: “Equipment and material shall be operated for a minimum 30-day 14-day operational period to verify performance.

In addition to specific requirements specified in the individual specification sections, process data that is recorded in the PLC shall be submitted to the Engineer in tabular format showing hourly process performance data. A log of all alarms shall also be submitted, along with notes describing corrective measures applied in response to alarm condition.”

32457-027 Jonesboro RPS Improvements-2 00 91 13.01

C. Section 32 31 13, Steel Fencing

1. Part 2.09-B shall be revised as follows: “The main entrance gate shall be a double single slide cantilever type gate with electric gate operators and vehicle detector loops for automatic operation.”

2. Add Part 2.09-F: “Gate operator system shall be as manufactured by Customline, Inc.; Crusader Division of McKinney Electronics, or equal.”

D. Section 00 73 00, Supplementary Conditions

1. Part 5.03-SC-5.03, the following drawings shall be added to the list:

a. Tank Drawings: Jonesboro Tanks, CROM, 1991

b. Tank Drawings: Noah’s Ark Tank, CROM, September 1971

E. Section 40 66 54, Cellular Communication System, shall be added to the contract.

All other terms and conditions of the PROJECT MANUAL remain unchanged.

PART 2 – REVISIONS TO THE DRAWINGS

A. Drawing C053

1. Add the following note: “4. Where BFV-400E connects to existing flanges or piping, Contractor shall completely remove the existing coating from the existing flanges or existing piping for a distance of 6-inches and apply new coating in accordance with Section 09 90 00.”

B. Drawing CD001

1. Add Detail C-01-0100

C. Drawing M102 shall be removed from the contract.

D. Drawing M103

1. Add the following note: “2. Where proposed valves, fittings, and/or piping connects to existing flange or piping, Contractor shall completely remove the existing coating from the existing flange or existing piping for a distance of 6-inches and apply new coating in accordance with Section 09 90 00.”

32457-027 Jonesboro RPS Improvements-3 00 91 13.01

E. Drawing M104

1. Revise Note 1 to read: “1. Tap 30-inch 24-inch discharge header and install 3/4 inch Sch 40 PVC remote sensing line from tap to 6-inch surge anticipator valve per manufacturer’s guidelines.”

F. Drawing M400

1. Revise callout at Pump 3 suction to read: 18"x10" ECC. RED., DEMO.

G. Drawing S3 shall be added to the contract.

PART 3 – QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q1: Regarding drawing C050, please provide details for the existing tower being demolished.

A1: Drawings for the existing tower are not available. A picture of the tower is included as Attachment A to this addendum.

Q2: The demolition shown on drawing M102 conflicts with the work to be performed in Section 01 11 00 Part 1.02 B. 2. Please clarify.

A2: Refer to PART 2 – C of this Addendum.

Q3: Please provide more information and details on the alternate item shown in Section 01 23 00 Part 3.01 A. 1.

A3: Jonesboro RPS construction drawings (Finished Water Pumping Station, Robert and Company, May 1991) are included as Attachment D to this addendum. No other drawings or details on the existing natural gas engine are available.

Q4: Please provide copies of the lead-based paint surveys referenced in Section 02 83 00 Part 1.01 A. 1.

A4: The asbestos and lead based paint survey reports are included as Attachments B and C to this addendum.

Q5: Drawing E102 shows power to the new valves at Noah’s Ark. Are any control circuits required?

A5: No. Remote control circuit wiring is not required to be installed for these valve actuators.

Q6: Does the American Iron and Steel Act apply to the project?

A6: No.

Q7: Item 7 in the shutdown schedule in Section 01 14 00 references replacement of MOV-010A through MOV-010D. Please confirm whether these valves and this shutdown is applicable to the project.

32457-027 Jonesboro RPS Improvements-4 00 91 13.01

A7: Shutdown 7 described in Table 01 14 00-B shall be removed from the project.

Refer to PART 1 – A.2 in this Addendum.

Q8: Please provide as-built information for all electrical duct banks shown on E050.

A8: Jonesboro RPS construction drawings (Finished Water Pumping Station, Robert and Company, May 1991) are included as Attachment D to this addendum.

Q9: Regarding Article 7.08 of the Supplementary Conditions, what fees are waived by the Owner and what permits or fees are required from other agencies/entities other than the Owner?

A9: CCWA: No permits are required from the Owner.

Clayton County Community Development: The project requires building and trade permits from Clayton County Community Development which the Contractor shall pay for. Drawings have been reviewed and are ready for the Contractor to pickup.

Clayton County Transportation and Development: Land disturbance activity and grading permits from Clayton County Transportation and Development have been received and will be provided to the Contractor.

Lead-based Abatement: The Contractor shall be responsible for any permits and fees associated with lead-based paint abatement.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division: The project has been approved by GA EPD; copies of the GA EPD permit approval will be provided to the Contractor.

Contractor is responsible for all fees associated with the project; none of the fees for the above-mentioned permits shall be waived.

Q10: Can the existing duct banks shown on E050 be abandoned in place rather than removed? If not, we assume that temporary feeds will need to be provided to/from the existing Tank 2 Aeration Control Panel. Please clarify.

A10: Existing duct banks identified for demolition shall be removed, not abandoned.

See Section 01 14 00 for requirements for maintaining Owner operations.

Specifically for the Tank 2 Aeration Control Panel, additional site investigation is recommended.

Q11: Drawings C050 and M402 show the location of the existing gas meter in conflict with proposed DB52 shown on E051 and E401. If the gas service is demolished to facilitate the construction of the proposed ductbank, does a temporary generator need to be supplied to provide backup power to existing Pump No. 3 and/or Pumps No. 1 & 4?

A11: Existing Pump No. 3 shall maintain backup power until JB-P-1, JB-P-2 and the proposed generator are put into service. Contractor shall route duct bank around existing gas meter/gas service or temporarily relocate gas meter/gas service to maintain the existing gas generator in service until the above criteria is met.

32457-027 Jonesboro RPS Improvements-5 00 91 13.01

Q12: The Building Code Analysis on A501 appears to indicate that a Fire Alarm is not required. Note 1 on E500 indicates that a Fire Alarm System is required. Please clarify.

A12: The fire alarm system is not a Code requirement, but it is a Project requirement.

Provide a fire alarm system for the new Electrical Building per Section 28 46 20.

Q13: Section 01 91 13 Part 3.02 references a 14-day operating test period. Section 01 75 00 Part 1.02 C. references a 30-day operational period. Please clarify which is required.

A13: Section 01 75 00 Part 1.02 C shall be revised to a 14-day operational period.

Refer to PART 1 – B.1 of this Addendum.

Q14: Stage 1 of the Suggested Sequence of Work (00 14 00) shows replacing the yard valves at the Jonesboro RPS. Is the intent for the Owner to temporarily operate these valves manually or does the Contractor need to provide temporary power to each valve?

A14: The yard valves at Jonesboro RPS shall be manually operable temporarily until the proposed electrical systems are installed and the electric actuators can be installed.

Q15: Please provide drawing details of the existing Meter Vault shown on C050.

A15: Jonesboro RPS construction drawings (Finished Water Pumping Station, Robert and Company, May 1991) are included as Attachment D to this addendum.

Q16: Please provide details on the double check valve, box, and sample station assemblies referenced in Note 3 on drawing C053.

A16: Drawings for the existing double check valve, box, and sample station are not available.

Q17: Regarding Section 01 14 00 Part 1.06 B. 6. b., is the intent to provide a 14-day period between each shutdown listed in Table 01 14 00-B?

A17: Section 01 14 00 Part 1.06-B(6)b refers to SCADA outages which are separate from pump outages. The 14-day period referenced in this paragraph only applies to shutdowns in Table 01 14 00-B if they require a SCADA shutdown.

Q18: Drawings M403 (JP-P-2) and M404 (Section E) have leaders to see equipment pad detail 1 on S3. Drawing S3 does not appear to be included in the documents. Please clarify or provide the detail as necessary.

A18: Drawing S3 is added to the Drawings, see PART 2 – F in this Addendum and Attachment G of this addendum.

Q19: To which structures do you expect Note 3 on drawing C052 apply?

A19: Water Tank #1, Water Tank #2, and Jonesboro RPS pump building.

Q20: Regarding Note 3 on M403, please provide details on the components necessary for the seal water system.

A20: Refer to API Standard 682, standard seal piping plan 11.

32457-027 Jonesboro RPS Improvements-6 00 91 13.01

Q21: Does Note 5 on M403 apply to the existing Meter and Altitude Valve Vaults? If so, please provide existing vault details.

A21: Jonesboro RPS construction drawings (Finished Water Pumping Station, Robert and Company, May 1991) are included as Attachment D to this addendum. No other drawings/details of the Jonesboro RPS are available.

Q22: Regarding M401 Section C and M404 Section F, please confirm that the existing concrete supports should be reused for the new 12” SAV installation.

A22: It is the intent for the existing concrete supports to be reused for the new 12-inch SAV installation.

Q23: Regarding E051, what are the depths of the existing gas line and water line (in particular in front of Tank 2 where DB-51 crosses it twice) that run parallel to Old Morrow Rd.?

A23: The depth of the gas main is unknown. Cover over the existing 24-inch water main varies from 3 to 4 feet.

Q24: Regarding Section 32 31 13 Part 2.09 B & C, please clarify whether proposed cantilevered sliding gate is intended to be a double or single sliding gate.

A24: Refer to PART 1 – C.1 of this Addendum.

Q25: We assume that the proposed sliding and swing gates should be ornamental as shown on CD002 and not chain link as specified in 32 31 13.

A25: The proposed sliding and swing gates at Jonesboro RPS shall be ornamental as shown on CD002.

Q26: Regarding Section 32 31 13 Part 2.09 C, please provide manufacturer(s) and model(s) for the proposed gate operator(s).

A26: Refer to PART 1 – C.2 of this Addendum.

Q27: Is the entire fence intended to be ornamental? If not, please indicate where fence transitions to chain link.

A27: All fencing at Jonesboro RPS shall be ornamental.

Q28: Provide elevations for depths of the six buried 24” BFVs with EMOs (two at Noah’s Ark RPS, four at Jonesboro RPS) for figuring length of stem & bonnet tube.

A28: Jonesboro RPS construction drawings (Finished Water Pumping Station, Robert and Company, May 1991), Jonesboro RPS tank drawings (Jonesboro Tanks, CROM, 1991), and Noah’s Ark RPS tank drawings (Noah’s Ark Tank, CROM, September 1971) are included as Attachments D, E, and F to this addendum. No other depth information is available.

32457-027 Jonesboro RPS Improvements-7 00 91 13.01

Q29: The seventh BFV (BFV-400E) at the Jonesboro RPS is inside a meter vault.

Please provide dimensions of vault and/or orientation and location of the EMO (inside vault or outside vault).

A29: Electric motor operator for BFV-400E shall be mounted to the top of the meter vault slab above the valve.

Q30: ‘Table 01 14 00-B Schedule of Shutdowns’ indicates replacement of yard valves MOV-010A through MOV-010D at Noah’s Ark RPS. These valves are not mentioned on the Drawings or elsewhere. Please clarify.

A30: Refer to PART 1 – A.2 of this Addendum, which removes reference to MOV- 010A through MOV-010D at Noah’s Ark RPS from the project scope of work.

Q31: Drawing M102 ‘Noah’s Ark RPS Demolition Photos’ details removal of Pumps No. 2 & No. 4. This is not indicated on the other demolition drawings (M100, M101) and no provisions for replacement of pumps or piping is mentioned elsewhere. Please clarify.

A31: Refer to PART 2 – C of this Addendum, which removes drawing M102 from the project scope of work.

Q32: Is AMTECH Drives approved for Supply?

A32: Approved VFD manufacturers are listed in Section 26 29 23.

Q33: Drawing E051 shows a security camera provided by others. Please confirm whether the Contractor needs to provide a pole for mounting the camera.

A33: No, the pole for the security camera is by others.

Q34: Is lightning protection required for the generator?

A34: No, the standby generator set is excluded from the lightning protection provisions in Section 26 41 00.

Q35: Drawing I002 shows an antenna for LCP-500, is this integral to the control panel or does this need to be routed to the exterior of the building?

A35: Cellular antenna shall be integral to the control panel similar to existing RTU panel.

Q36: Regarding Section 01 14 00 Table 01 14 00-B, please provide explanation and/or detail of the 30” line stop required in Shutdown No. 8.

A36: Refer to PART 1 – A.3 of this Addendum; the 30-inch linestop is not required to install MOV-100A and MOV-100B and shall be removed as a requirement to perform Shutdown No. 8.

Q37: Regarding the SAV replacement for the Noah’s Ark RPS shown on M100- M104, will an additional shutdown be required or should the Contractor plan to perform the work during Shutdown No. 8?

A37: Refer to PART 1 – A.4 in this Addendum; an additional shutdown (Shutdown No.

9) shall be added to Table 01 14 00-B as a part of this addendum.

32457-027 Jonesboro RPS Improvements-8 00 91 13.01

Q38: C-32-0510 on drawing CD002 shows the slide gate as 4’ tall. C-32-0512 shows the swing gate as 8’ tall. Please clarify what height the fence should be.

A38: Detail C-32-0510 identifies a 4-inch post, but does not identify height. The ornamental fence and gates shall be 8-feet tall.

Q39: Please confirm that no lead-based paint abatement is required for the Noah Ark Repump Station Improvements.

A39: Lead-based paint abatement may be required for Noah’s Ark RSP. Asbestos and Lead Based Paint Survey for Noah’s Ark RPS, ECS Southeast, LLP, November 2022 has been included as Attachment B to this addendum. In addition, Refer to Section 02 83 00 Lead-Based Paint Abatement.

Q40: Please provide the locations and quantities of the lead base abatement at the Jonesboro Repump Station Improvements.

A40: Asbestos and Lead Based Paint Survey for Jonesboro RSP, ECS Southeast, LLP, November 2022 has been included as Attachment C to this addendum.

Q41: Please provide the survey and test report for the lead base abatement for Jonesboro Repump Station Improvements.

A41: See responses to Q40: and Q41:.

Q42: Please clarify if this project requires AIS (American Iron and Steel act) requirements.

A42: This project does not require compliance with the American Iron and Steel Act.

Q43: Please confirm that SECTION 01 45 33 SPECIAL INSPECTIONS is the owner or the engineer of record scope of work.

A43: Contractor shall comply with Section 01 45 33. Refer to Part 1.01 The Requirement and 3.05 Contractor Responsibilities.

Q44: Under specification section 02 83 00 (LBP) Lead Base Paint section 1.01 the contractor shall provide all labor, equipment, tools, materials and permit required to test for, remove and dispose of lead-based paint materials required to complete the work. Results of a lead base paint survey for each site are included. But the documents received do not include a survey.

Please provide an Asbestos and Lead Based Paint Survey.

A44: See responses to Q40: and Q41:.

Q45: Has the Owner obtained the necessary right of way permits for installation of new utilities shown on plan C053 the Electrical Ductbank?

A45: Clayton County Transportation and Development reviewed and approved the Work as shown.

Q46: This project we are replacing a minimal number of spools and fittings that are tied into an existing line. The layout is not designed to isolate the new piping from the existing piping. If testing against the existing line could

32457-027 Jonesboro RPS Improvements-9 00 91 13.01 cause a failed test. Consideration should be given to this. Minimal testing should be considered under these conditions. Please clarify.

A46: No pressure testing of proposed piping against existing piping, fittings, or valves shall be required. Acceptance of the proposed piping, fittings, and valves installation shall be based on their performance and functionality during the 14- Day Operating Test Period described in Section 01 91 13 – General Commissioning Requirements.

Q47: If a Bidder has been previously approved by the CCWA as a Responsible Bidder per section 00 45 13, do we have to resubmit this information again?

A47: Bidder must submit all required information listed in Section 00 21 13 – Instructions to Bidders and Section 00 45 13 – Bidders Qualifications.

Q48: Drawing M404, Section C details the equipment pads has a note to see drawing S3. But there is no drawing S3 supplied in the documents. Please provide sheet S3.

A48: Drawing S3 is added to the Drawings, see PART 2 – F in this Addendum and attachments.

Q49: Please clarify why drawing M102 showing demolition of Noah’s Ark RPS pumps was included in these documents?

A49: Refer to PART 2 – C of this Addendum.

Q50: Specification 40 05 00, 3.01, S. states, "ALL PIPING SHALL HAVE TYPE "A"

BEDDING AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS, UNLESS OTHERWISE

SPECIFIED HEREIN OR INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS.", however there is not a Type A bedding detail shown, please provide.

A50: See Type A bedding detail in PART 4 – H of this Addendum.

Q51: Specification 40 05 00, 3.04, A. states "All piping shall be properly flushed and tested unless specifically exempted elsewhere in the Specifications or otherwise approved by the Engineer.” However, this job requires replacing a limited amount of spools and/or valves which doesn't allow for testing. In the original bid Addendum #4, Q&A #13 addressed this item, which the response stated, "No pressure testing of proposed piping against existing piping, fittings, or valves will be required.". Please reconfirm your response for this bid.

A51: Refer to Q46: response.

Q52: Specification 01 14 00-B Schedule of Shutdowns doesn't list replacement of the 6" SAV's at Noah's Ark RPS. There is not an isolation valve on the downstream side, so its likely two partial shutdowns would need to occur (#1 = Pumps #1 & #2 are off and pump #4 is on, #2= Pump #4 is off and pumps #1 & #2 are on). Please confirm if the two shutdowns are acceptable or if another means is available/acceptable.

32457-027 Jonesboro RPS Improvements-10 00 91 13.01

A52: An additional shutdown (Shutdown No. 9) shall be added to Table 01 14 00-B.

Refer to PART 1 – A.4 in this Addendum. Surge anticipator valves and associated gate valves, fittings, and piping shall be installed during Shutdown No. 9.

Q53: Drawing M104, note 1 states, "Tap 30-inch discharge header and install 3/4-inch SCH 40 PVC remote sensing line from tap to 6-inch surge anticipator valve per manufacturer's guidelines". Please respond to the following questions:

A. It appears the discharge header is 24" according to drawing M103 and not 30", please confirm.

B. Is there an existing tap that can be utilized for the new line (existing SAV sensing line tap)?

C. If an existing tap cannot be used a direct wet tap into the header maybe be required since it is unclear if the existing tie rods will interfere with a tapping saddle. Please confirm if any objection or other intentions for the tap.

A53: A. Refer to PART 2 – E of this Addendum; the existing discharge header at Noah’s Ark Building 1 is 24-inch.

B. There is not an existing tap on the 24-inch header for the existing surge relief valves.

C. Direct tapping of the 24-inch discharge header is allowable.

Q54: Drawing M102 Photos 1, 2, & 3 show and call for demolition of pumps, engines, ductile iron piping, and natural gas piping. However, this appears to be scope from the original bid (when the natural gas engines and pumps were to be replaced), but this scope was removed in the rebid. Please confirm all work shown on this drawing is incorrect and provide updated sheet or remove sheet from documents.

A54: Refer to PART 2 – C of this Addendum.

Q55: Specification 01 14 00, 1.06, B, 5. states "Owner will drain the existing ground storage tanks at beginning of shutdowns that require tank draining." The sentence implies that the duration of time it takes to drain the tanks is part of the maximum duration allowed for the shutdown (8 hours). Although the amount of time to drain the tanks is not stated (likely several hours), further reducing the amount of time the contractor can work during the shutdown will likely not allow enough time for the contractor to complete the required work. Please confirm that the Owner will drain the existing GST's immediately prior to the shutdown allowing the contractor a full 8 hours to perform the work. We assume the Owner will close the GST fill line(s) and pump down the water as low as possible while not creating any potential issues for the pumps, then the remaining water will be drained by the tank drain line (single 12" pipe for both GST's at Jonesboro).

Once the remaining water is drained from the tanks the contractor's

32457-027 Jonesboro RPS Improvements-11 00 91 13.01 shutdown duration starts. Please confirm these assumptions and clarify anything inaccurate or missing.

A55: See PART 1 – A.1 of this Addendum. Contractor shall have the full time listed in Table 01 14 00-B for each individual shutdown. The tank draining process described in the above question is generally correct.

Q56: Drawing M400 at Pump 3 suction calls out "18"x10" ECC. RED., DEMO."

However, the fitting is drawn as existing, and on M403 it is also drawn as existing. Please confirm this fitting does not get replaced.

A56: See PART 2 – F of this Addendum; the existing 18” x 10” reducer on Pump 3 suction piping at Jonesboro RPS is existing and shall not be demolished or replaced.

Q57: Drawing M402, photo 2 appears to show cooling water supply and return/discharge for the engine. Does the return/discharge pipe extend below the grating and then stop a few inches above the concrete slab, or does it continue somewhere else?

A57: Yes, the return pipe extends below the grating and terminates above the discharge header trench slab.

Q58: Drawing M403, Note 5 states "ALL EXISTING FINISHED WATER PIPING

AND VALVES INSIDE THE PUMP ROOM AND OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING

EXTENDING TO 12-INCHES BELOW GRADE SHALL BE COATED PER

SPECIFICATION 09 90 00". A few questions/clarifications on this note:

A. Does this note apply to both Jonesboro and Noah's Ark?

B. If it applies to Noah's Ark, only Building 1 piping?

C. We assume the only "buried" piping that will need to be uncovered to be painted to 12" below grade are the pump suction pipes & surge pipes that are partially exposed, please confirm.

D. Does any of the piping in vaults get painted? If so, please be specific to which vaults.

A58: A. Note 5 on Drawing M403 applies only to Jonesboro RPS.

B. N/A C. Pipe coating shall extend 12-inches below grade where pipe transitions from above grade to below grade without passing through a structural element (like a building or vault wall). The above grade pump suction piping outside of the building extending to 12-inches below grade shall comply with the note.

D. Note on drawing M403 does not apply to vaults; however, refer to PART 2 – A.1 of this Addendum for required coating for BFV-400E installation.

PART 4 – ATTACHMENTS

A. Jonesboro RPS antenna photograph

B. Asbestos and Lead Based Paint Survey for Noah’s Ark RPS, ECS Southeast, LLP, November 2022

32457-027 Jonesboro RPS Improvements-12 00 91 13.01

C. Asbestos and Lead Based Paint Survey for Jonesboro RPS, ECS Southeast, LLP, November 2022

D. Finished Water Pumping Station, Robert and Company, May 1991

E. Jonesboro Tanks, CROM, 1991

F. Noah’s Ark Tank, CROM, September 1971

G. Drawing S3

H. Detail C-01-0100

I. Section 40 66 54, Cellular Communication System

END OF SECTION

Acknowledgment of receipt of this addendum must be signed and included in your bid submittal.

Company Name

Signature

Date

ASBESTOS AND LEAD BASED PAINT SURVEY

NOAH’S ARK RSP

1865 NOAH’S ARK ROAD

JONESBORO, GEORGIA 30236

ECS PROJECT NO. 49:18720

FOR: HAZEN AND SAWYER

NOVEMBER 30, 2022

November 30, 2022

Mr. Chas Goblisch Hazen and Sawyer 1300 Altmore Avenue Suite D-520 Atlanta, Georgia 30342 CGoblisch@hazenandsawyer.com

ECS Project No. 49:18720

Reference: Asbestos and Lead Based Paint Survey, Noah’s Ark RSP, 1865 Noah’s Ark Road, Jonesboro, Georgia

Dear Mr. Goblisch:

ECS Southeast, LLP (ECS) is pleased to provide Hazen and Sawyer with the results of the above referenced Asbestos and Lead Based Paint Survey performed at Noah’s Ark RSP located at 1865 Noah’s Ark Road in Jonesboro, Georgia. This report summarizes our observations, analytical results, findings, and recommendations related to the work performed. The work described in this report was performed by ECS in general accordance with the Scope of Services described in ECS Proposal Number 49:33782P and the terms and conditions of the agreement authorizing those services.

ECS appreciates this opportunity to provide Hazen and Sawyer with our services. If we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely, ECS Southeast, LLP

Jenny Clark, REM Justin Roth, CHMM Environmental Department Manager Environmental Principal jclark@ecslimited.com jroth@ecslimited.com 404-640-9257 843-654-4448

1281 Kennestone Circle NE, Suite D, Marietta, Georgia 30066 • T: 770-590-1971 • ecslimited.com

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The subject property is developed with a water treatment facility located at 1865 Noah’s Ark Road in Jonesboro, Clayton County, Georgia. The two pump station buildings consist of approximately 5,800 square feet of space in total. The buildings were reportedly constructed in 1974 and 1996 respectively. ECS understands the buildings are scheduled for demolition.

The purpose of the Asbestos and Lead Based Paint Survey was to identify asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and lead-paint that may be present within the building materials scheduled to be impacted by the planned demolition activities.

Asbestos Survey

On November 18, 2022, Ms. Jenny Clark, REM, an accredited inspector, performed the asbestos assessment. Bulk samples were submitted to EMSL Analytical, Inc. (EMSL) in Smyrna, Georgia for analysis via Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) in accordance with the current EPA-600 methodology.

A total of 22 bulk samples from nine homogeneous areas were submitted to the laboratory of which 28 layers were analyzed. Based on the laboratory analysis of the bulk samples collected during the survey, one of the materials were reported to contain asbestos above the regulatory limit.

The following material was reported as asbestos-containing:

• Roofing Mastic - Building #1 / Upper Roof

The following materials were reported as non-asbestos containing:

• Window Glass and Glazing;

• Exterior Stucco Window Sill;

• Gasket Material;

• Tank Insulation Material;

• Exterior Wall Panel;

• Built-up Roofing - Upper and Lower Roof; and

• Exterior Window Caulk.

Due to inaccessibility or the destructive means that asbestos sampling requires, unseen ACMs may remain within the building hidden behind inaccessible areas that include, but are not limited to, sub-grade walls, structural members, topping slabs, sub-grade sealants, flooring located below underlayments, areas behind exterior walls, pipe trenches, and subsurface utilities, etc.

If suspect materials are discovered during construction activities, they should be presumed to contain asbestos and be treated as ACMs or be sampled immediately upon discovery and prior to disturbance for asbestos content by a certified asbestos inspector in accordance with 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1926.1101.

Lead Paint Survey

ECS Project # 49:18720

On November 18, 2022, Ms. Jenny Clark, REM, an accredited inspector, performed the Lead Paint Survey. Paint chip samples were submitted to EMSL Analytical, Inc. (EMSL) in Kernersville, North Carolina for analysis via Flame Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS) in accordance with EPA Method

SW 3050B/7000B.

A total of nine paint chips were collected. Based on the findings of the lead survey, detectable concentrations of lead were identified on some paints and surface coatings.

The executive summary is an integral portion of this report, however, ECS recommends the report be read in its entirety.

PAGETABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.0 PURPOSE

3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Asbestos-Containing Materials

3.2 Lead in Paint and Surface Coatings

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 Asbestos-Containing Materials

4.2 Suspect or Assumed Asbestos-Containing Materials

4.3 Lead in Paint and Surface Coatings

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

5.1 Asbestos-Containing Materials

5.2 Lead in Paint and Surface Coatings

6.0 LIMITATIONS

TABLE OF APPENDICES

Appendix I: Site Photographs

Appendix II: Asbestos Bulk Sample Results

Appendix III: Lead Laboratory Analytical Results

Appendix IV: Certifications/Licenses

1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

The subject property is developed with a water treatment facility located at 1865 Noah’s Ark Road in Jonesboro, Clayton County, Georgia. The two pump station buildings consist of approximately 5,800 square feet of space in total. The buildings were reportedly constructed in 1974 and 1996 respectively. The interior finishes include concrete floors, walls and ceilings. The exteriors are brick.

Building #1 has a built-up roof on two roofing systems, upper and lower and Building #2 has a membrane roof.

2.0 PURPOSE

The purpose of the Asbestos and Lead Based Paint Survey was to identify asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and lead-containing paint (LCP) which require special handling and/or disposal if disturbed during construction activities. The identification of ACMs require trained labor, regulated work practices, and special disposal. The identification of LCP requires disclosure to contractors and monitoring of lead exposure.

3.0 METHODOLOGY

ECS performed the authorized Scope of Services in general accordance with our proposal, standard industry practice(s) and methods specified by regulation(s) for the identification of ACMs and LCP.

3.1 Asbestos-Containing Materials

On November 18, 2022, Ms. Jenny Clark, REM, an EPA accredited inspector, performed the asbestos survey. The survey consisted of observing the accessible areas of the building for the presence of suspect materials which may contain asbestos. The survey involved detecting both friable materials (materials which can be pulverized or reduced to a powder by hand pressure when dry) and non-friable materials (materials which pose a hazard when sawn, sanded, drilled or pulverized).

Homogeneous materials (based on material type, color, texture, etc.) were identified in during the survey.

The EPA National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) requires a survey for asbestos prior to renovation or demolition. Renovation or demolition is defined under NESHAP as the removal of a load-bearing structure or member. On the basis of requirements under NESHAP for renovation activities, ECS conducted a limited survey for potential ACM. The ACM survey was limited in that we did not conduct demolition such as jack/sledge hammering to expose potentially concealed materials.

Samples were collected in general accordance with EPA Standard 40 CFR 763 Subpart E, Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) and OSHA Standard 29 CFR 1926.1101 Inspection Protocol.

Multiple samples of each unique material were submitted. Samples were analyzed using “Positive Stop” methodology. If one sample of a homogeneous material is reported to contain asbestos, the remaining samples of that material are not analyzed. If one sample of a material from a homogeneous area was reported to contain greater than 1% asbestos, then by EPA definition, it was characterized as asbestos-containing material.

November 30, 2022

As per the regulations, samples were collected from random locations of each homogeneous area, with the material’s number of samples based upon the following criteria:

• Thermal Insulation Materials (piping, breeching, boiler insulation, etc.) – A minimum of two

(2) samples are required. Patch areas (less than 6 square or linear feet) may have one (1) sample collected.

• Surfacing Materials (plaster, fireproofing, etc.) – A minimum of seven (7) samples are to be taken for areas greater than 5,000 square feet; five (5) for areas greater than 1,000 square feet, but less than 5,000 square feet; three (3) for areas less than 1,000 square feet.

• Miscellaneous Materials (flooring, adhesives, roofing, wallboard, etc.) – A minimum of two (2) samples are required.

In order to determine if the suspect materials observed during the visual survey contained asbestos, representative bulk samples were collected and placed in sealed packages. Samples were collected during the survey and submitted to EMSL for analysis using the EPA recommended method of Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) coupled with dispersion staining (Method No. EPA 600/M4-020-82, Dec. 1982). EMSL participates in the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP).

Their NVLAP accreditation number is 101048-1. Several of the samples were layered and analyzed as multiple samples. EPA regulations require that multiple samples of each homogeneous area be collected for laboratory analysis. The material type, sample location, and analytical results of each bulk sample are also summarized in the attached Asbestos Bulk Analysis report in Appendices.

During the survey, ECS attempted to identify suspect ACMs in readily accessible areas. However, due to the destructive means required to identify some materials, certain areas were deemed inaccessible (i.e. behind walls or sub grade materials) and were not surveyed for suspect ACMs. Unidentified suspect ACMs may be located in these and/or other inaccessible areas.

3.2 Lead in Paint and Surface Coatings

The lead paint survey was performed by collection of suspect lead paint chips to identify lead concentrations in painted surfaces.

The lead paint assessment was conducted utilizing the U.S. EPA definition of lead-based paint (LBP).

Under this definition, painted surfaces which contain lead in concentrations equal to or greater than 0.5% lead by weight are classified as coated with LBP. Paints with concentrations of detectable levels of paint are considered LCPs. Activities which disturb LCPs and glazing (while not LBPs by the U.S. EPA definition) are regulated by OSHA (29 CFR 1926.62).

Because the current or proposed use of the property is not residential or child-occupied, the scope of the lead paint survey was not conducted in accordance with HUD Chapter 7 requirements. This representative survey included collecting paint chips from walls, windows, doors, and miscellaneous components.

4.0 RESULTS

The following is a summary of laboratory results, findings and observations.

November 30, 2022

4.1 Asbestos-Containing Materials

In total, 22 bulk samples from nine homogeneous areas were submitted to the laboratory of which 28 layers were analyzed. An Asbestos-Containing Material (ACM) is defined as any material containing more than one percent (>1%) asbestos as determined using the method specified in Appendix E, Subpart E, 40 CFR Part 763, Section 1, PLM. Materials are categorized by the U.S. EPA in the following categories:

• Friable ACMs are defined as any ACM that, when dry, can be crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder by hand pressure. Non-friable ACMs are defined as any ACM that, when dry, cannot be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure.

• Category I non-friable ACM are listed as following: packings, gaskets, resilient floor coverings, and asphalt roofing products containing more than one percent (>1%) asbestos.

• Category II non-friable ACM are listed as any material, excluding Category I non-friable ACM, containing more than one percent (>1%) asbestos.

Regulated Asbestos Containing Materials (RACM) are friable ACM or non-friable ACM that will be or has been subjected to sanding, grinding, cutting, or abrading or has crumbled, been pulverized, or reduced to powder in the course of renovation and/or demolition operations.

EMSL submitted a signed final laboratory report to ECS on November 22, 2022. One of the bulk samples submitted for analysis were reported to contain asbestos in detectable concentrations. A complete list of the sampled materials submitted for analysis and sample locations are located in the Appendix of this report. Representative photographs of collected samples are also located in the Appendix of this report.

Summary of Asbestos-Containing Materials Identified

Sample ID Location

Material Description

Analytical Results Category

RM-2 Building #1 - Upper Roof

Roofing Mastic 3% Chrysotile Category I non-friable

4.2 Suspect or Assumed Asbestos-Containing Materials

Due to the inaccessibility or the destructive means that asbestos sampling requires, additional suspect ACMs may remain within the building hidden behind inaccessible areas that include, but are not limited to, sub-grade walls, structural members, topping slabs, sub-grade sealants, flooring located below underlayments, areas behind exterior walls, pipe trenches, and subsurface utilities, etc.

These areas were deemed inaccessible and were not assessed.

If these materials are discovered during construction activities, they should be presumed to contain asbestos and be treated as ACMs or be sampled immediately upon discovery and prior to disturbance for asbestos content by a certified asbestos inspector in accordance with 29 CFR 1926.1101.

November 30, 2022

Based upon our past experience in the identification of ACMs in similarly constructed buildings, the following additional suspect ACMs may also be located in inaccessible areas of the structure:

• Within the piping systems or equipment not accessed below grade.

4.3 Lead in Paint and Surface Coatings

Paint and surface coatings which contain detectable concentrations of lead considered “lead-containing paints”. Since OSHA has no specific action level for lead in paint, all paint on the site found to have a measurable concentration of lead should be assumed to be lead containing. Work performed which may disturb lead-containing paint is regulated under OSHA as referenced under 29 CFR 1926.62. A total of 164 readings were collected during the survey, including calibration readings.

Paint and other surface coatings which are defined by applicable regulation as lead-based paints are summarized in the table below and photographs of lead-based paint identified are located in the Appendix.

Paint and surface coatings which contain detectable concentrations of lead are considered LCPs.

Since OSHA has no specific action level for lead in paint, all paint on the site found to have a measurable concentration of lead should be assumed to be lead-containing. Work performed which may disturb LCP is regulated under OSHA as referenced under 29 CFR 1926.62. A total of nine paint chip samples were collected during the survey. Paint and other surface coatings that were sampled are summarized in the table below and photographs of sampling locations are located in the Appendix.

Summary of Paint Chip Results

Sample ID Color Substrate Component Lead Concentration (%) by

Weight

PC-1 / Bldg #1

Yellow Concrete Wall <0.0080%

PC-2 / Bldg #1

Light Blue

Metal Equipment - Base

<0.0080%

PC-3 / Bldg #1

Brown Concrete Floor 0.026%

PC-4 / Bldg #1

Yellow Concrete Ceiling <0.0080%

PC-5 / Bldg #1

Light Blue

Metal Equipment - Piping

0.015%

PC-6 / Bldg #2

Gray Metal Equipment - Base

0.017%

PC-7 / Bldg #2

Light Blue

Metal Equipment - Base

<0.0080%

November 30, 2022

Sample ID Color Substrate Component Lead Concentration (%) by

Weight

PC-8 / Bldg #2

Yellow Concrete Wall <0.0080%

PC-9 / Bldg #2

Light Blue

Metal Equipment - Piping

<0.0080%

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

Based on our understanding of the purpose of the Asbestos and Lead Based Paint Survey, the results of laboratory analysis, and our findings and observations, ECS presents the following recommendations.

5.1 Asbestos-Containing Materials

ECS recommends where a material type has been identified as asbestos-containing that other materials with similar color, texture, age and size throughout the building’s interior and exterior be assumed to contain asbestos. Please refer to Section 4.1 for a complete list of building materials that were reported positive for asbestos and to Section 4.2 for materials that were assumed to contain asbestos.

Suspect ACMs not observed due to inaccessibility or not sampled due to the destructive means that sampling would require may also be encountered during construction activities. At the time of the survey, only limited destructive means were used to locate or sample suspect ACMs; therefore, additional suspect ACMs may remain within inaccessible areas that include, but are not limited to, sub-grade walls, structural members, topping slabs, exterior areas, sub-grade sealants, flooring located below underlayments, vapor barriers, pipe trenches and other subsurface utilities, etc. If additional suspect ACMs are uncovered which were not accessible during this survey, it is recommended that these materials either be assumed to contain asbestos or be sampled prior to disturbance upon discovery for asbestos content by an asbestos inspector in accordance with 29 CFR 1926.1101.

5.2 Lead in Paint and Surface Coatings

Based on the findings of the lead survey, detectable concentrations of lead were identified on some paints and surface coatings.

The presence of lead is a concern primarily when conditions exist where it may be inhaled or ingested.

Regardless of the analytical results of a material, all painted and/or glazed surfaces may still contain concentrations of lead in the paint, which when disturbed, may generate lead dust greater than the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 50 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) as an 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) established by the OSHA “Lead Exposure in Construction Rule (29 CFR 1926.62).”

November 30, 2022

The OSHA standard gives no guidance on acceptable levels of lead in paint at which no exposure to airborne lead (above the action level) would be expected. Rather, OSHA defines airborne concentrations, and references specific types of work practices and operations from which a lead hazard may be generated (reference 29 CFR 1926.62, section d). Environmental and personnel monitoring should be conducted during any removal/demolition process (as appropriate) to verify that actual personal exposures are below the PEL of 50 µg/m3 as an 8-hour TWA. Under OSHA requirements, the contractor performing renovation work will be required to conduct this monitoring and follow applicable requirements under 29 CFR 1926.62 if disturbing LCP.

Destructive actions to paint containing detectable levels of lead (e.g. component removal, demolition, sanding, grinding, burning, paint preparation, etc.) will require the contractor comply with the standards of the OSHA regulation 29 CFR 1926.62, including but not limited to training, initial exposure monitoring, the use of personal protective equipment, and medical surveillance. The OSHA standard gives no guidance on acceptable levels of lead in paint at which no exposure to airborne lead (above the action level) would be expected. Rather, OSHA defines airborne concentrations, and references specific types of work practices and operations from which a lead hazard may be generated (reference 29 CFR 1926.62, section d). Environmental and personnel monitoring should be conducted during any removal/demolition process (as appropriate) to verify that actual personal exposures are below the PEL as an 8-hour TWA.

6.0 LIMITATIONS

The conclusions and recommendations presented within this report are based upon a reasonable level of assessment within normal bounds and standards of professional practice for a site in this particular geographic setting. ECS is not responsible or liable for the discovery and elimination of hazards that may potentially cause damage, accidents, or injuries.

The observations, conclusions, and recommendations pertaining to environmental conditions at the subject site are necessarily limited to conditions observed, and/or materials reviewed at the time this study was undertaken. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made with regard to the conclusions and recommendations presented within this report. This report is provided for the exclusive use of the client. This report is not intended to be used or relied upon in connection with other projects or by other unidentified third parties without the written consent of ECS and the client.

Our recommendations are in part based on federal, state, and local regulations and guidelines. ECS does not assume the responsibility of the person(s) in charge of the site, or otherwise undertake responsibility for reporting to any local, state, or federal public agencies, any conditions at the site that may present a potential danger to public health, safety, or the environment. Under this scope of services, ECS assumes no responsibility regarding any response actions initiated as a result of these findings. General compliance with regulations and response actions are the sole responsibility of the Client and should be conducted in accordance with local, state, and/or federal requirements.

November 30, 2022

1 - View of Noah's Ark Building 1

2 - View of Noah's Ark Building 2

3 - View of the interior of Noah's Ark - Building 1

4 - View of the interior of Noah's Ark - Building 2

5 - View of the wall panels

6 - View of the tank insulation

7 - View of the roof of Building 1

8 - View of the roof of Building 2

9 - View of yellow paint on CMU wall

Appendix II: Asbestos Bulk Sample Results

EMSL Analytical, Inc.

2205 Corporate Plaza Parkway SE, Suite 200 Smyrna, GA 30080

Tel/Fax: (770) 956-9150 / (770) 956-9181 http://www.EMSL.com / atlantalab@emsl.com

072208277EMSL Order:

Customer ID: ENCS55

Customer PO:

Project ID:

Attention: Phone:Jenny Clark (864) 987-1610

Fax:ECS Southeast, LLP (864) 987-1615

Received Date:1200 Woodruff Road 11/18/2022 12:05 PM

Analysis Date:Suite H-12 11/21/2022

Collected Date:Greenville, SC 29607

Project: 18720

Test Report: Asbestos Analysis of Bulk Materials via EPA 600/R-93/116 Method using Polarized

Light Microscopy

Sample Description Appearance % Fibrous % Non-Fibrous

Non-Asbestos Asbestos

% Type

WG-1

072208277-0001

None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)100%Clear

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

Window Glazing -

Bldg. #1 - Window

HA: 1

WG-2

072208277-0002

None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)100%Clear

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

Window Glazing -

Bldg. #1 - Window

HA: 1

WS-1

072208277-0003

None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)100%Gray

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

Window Sill - Bldg. #1

- Exterior Window

HA: 2

WS-2

072208277-0004

None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)100%Gray

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

Window Sill - Bldg. #1

- Exterior Window

HA: 2

G-1

072208277-0005

None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)10%Cellulose90%Brown

Fibrous

Homogeneous

Gasket - Bldg. #1 -

Blue Equip

HA: 3

G-2

072208277-0006

None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)10%Cellulose90%Brown

Fibrous

Homogeneous

Gasket - Bldg. #1 -

Blue Equip

HA: 3

TI-1-Layer 1

072208277-0007

None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)95%Min. Wool5%Blue

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

Tank Insulation -

Bldg. #1 - Tank 1

HA: 4

TI-1-Layer 2

072208277-0007A

None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)80%Min. Wool20%Tan

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

Tank Insulation -

Bldg. #1 - Tank 1

HA: 4

TI-2-Layer 1

072208277-0008

None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)95%Min. Wool5%Blue

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

Tank Insulation -

Bldg. #1 - Tank2

HA: 4

TI-2-Layer 2

072208277-0008A

None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)80%Min. Wool20%Tan

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

Tank Insulation -

Bldg. #1 - Tank2

HA: 4

WP-1

072208277-0009

None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)100%White

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

Wall Panel - Bldg. #1

- Ext.- Under

Windows

HA: 5

WP-2

072208277-0010

None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)100%White

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

Wall Panel - Bldg. #1

- Ext.- Under

Windows

HA: 5

Initial report from: 11/21/2022 11:52:10

Page 1 of 3ASB_PLM_0008_0001 - 1.78 Printed: 11/21/2022 11:52 AM

Tel/Fax: (770) 956-9150 / (770) 956-9181 http://www.EMSL.com / atlantalab@emsl.com

072208277EMSL Order:

Customer ID: ENCS55

Customer PO:

Project ID:

Test Report: Asbestos Analysis of Bulk Materials via EPA 600/R-93/116 Method using Polarized

Light Microscopy

Sample Description Appearance % Fibrous % Non-Fibrous

Non-Asbestos Asbestos

% Type

RM-1

072208277-0011

None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)95%Cellulose5%Black

Non-Fibrous

Homogeneous

Roof Mastic - Bldg. #1

- Upper Roof

HA: 6

RM-2

072208277-0012

3% ChrysotileNon-fibrous (Other)97%Black

Non-Fibrous

Homo…