BL036_24 Ad 4.pdf

April 02, 2024 Addendum No. 4

BL036-24

H-22 (Lake Wellbrook), H-25 (Dew Lake), and H-3 (Haynes Pond 3) Dams Outlet Works Rehabilitation

The following addition/changes modify the Bid No. BL036-24 “H-22 (Lake Wellbrook), H-25 (Dew Lake), and H-3 (Haynes Pond 3) Dams Outlet Works Rehabilitation” Contract Documents, dated February 2024, as first advertised on February 21, 2024.

I. Modifications:

M1. Make the following changes to the Front-End Documents and Technical Specifications:

i. The following number of days for consecutive calendar days for completion have been changed:

a. Substantial Completion: CHANGED from 200 days to 290 days.

b. Final Completion: CHANGED from 230 days to 320 days.

i. See attachment A1 for revised forms.

II. Questions:

Q1. Please provide the expected influent/incoming water fill rates (CFS or GPM) for various events/stages (average, 1” rain event, 100-year flood, etc.) for each of the lakes/ponds. This is necessary to determine cofferdam and dewatering scopes.

A1. The two-year storm peak inflow discharge for H22, H25, and H3 is estimated to be 544, 727, and 1054 cfs, respectively. The cofferdam elevation and selection of appropriate inflow event for the work is to be selected by the Contractor. The Contractor may sequence the work to limit working during wet periods or allow for the area protected by the cofferdam to be wet during periods where the Contractor is not working.

Q2. Are there existing contours of the submerged portions of the lakes/ponds available? This is necessary to determine the cofferdam and dewatering scopes.

A2. Full bathymetry data for each reservoir is not currently available.

Q3. Drawing C-1 for each of the sites lists “TS” and “HB” elevations around the OCS’s. Please confirm the abbreviation for these (Top of Soil/Silt and Hard Bottom?). Note that H-25 elevations are all the same for the TS and HB listed and are above the normal pool elevation, please confirm these are accurate.

A3. TS designates “top of silt” and HB designates “hard bottom”. The outlet control structure and principal spillway elevations are presented correctly. The initial elevations provided for the H-25 site are in error. Please see below for a plan view with updated TS and HB elevations at H-25 based on surveying from September 2020.

BL036-24

Q4. Drawing C-1 appears to show as-built elevations around the OCS’s, but these elevations appear to be higher than the OCS invert. Is there any anticipated excavation or demucking around the OCS’s that will be required? If so, please clarify and provide limits of excavation/demucking and consider adding a unit price item to handle this work as the quantity is unknown.

A4. Please see response to Question 3. Localized excavation/demucking is anticipated.

Excavation/demucking within the Lake is considered incidental to Bid Item No. 5 (Dewatering and Water Control). It is not anticipated for the material to require removal and can be temporarily placed elsewhere within the Lake working limits.

Q5. Is there any concern when draining the lakes/ponds through the Low-Level Gate (H-3 & H-25), that accumulated silt, decaying materials, or debris will be discharged from the lakes/ponds?

When they were drained for inspection during development of this bid’s documents, was there any issue with water quality during the draining?

A5. The potential for sediment migration downstream is currently unknown, as the lakes in the project have not been completely emptied in a minimum of 20 years. The contractor shall be prepared to control sediment migration, and the means and methods to do so will be under the discretion of the contractor. At other sites sediment control measures have been required after the lake has been completely drained due to the potential for lakebed erosion from baseflow. Additionally, care should be taken in opening the low-level gate slowly to limit potential discharge of sediment downstream. Each site, however, is unique and performance at other sites does not guarantee similar results for this project’s dam sites.

Q6. Specification 31 23 19, 1.2, B, 3, states “To prevent flooding during storm events and on weekends, the Contractor shall maintain a combination of existing channel sections and stable proposed channel sections capable of conveying flow.” We are unclear on what channel sections are being referenced, please clarify the intent of this item. Please provide information on the existing channel sections mentioned above as well.

A6. The intent of this statement is that the stream channel immediately downstream of the dams shall be maintained in an adequate condition where: (i) erosion is not occurring when bypassing flows;

and (ii) sediment accumulation is not occurring that may restrict the stream channel capacity.

Q7. Specification 31 23 19, 1.5, A, 2 states “The maximum amount of time that a lake can be completely drawn down is 1 month (not including initial drawdown and refilling). It is the contractor’s responsibility to schedule construction activities on portions of the Work that require the lake to be drawn down such that the activities can be completed within 2 months.” Please clarify the time restrictions on the work as the first sentence only allows for 1 month, and the second sentence allows for 2 months.

A7. Due to the contract extension period provided in Q10 the maximum time a lake shall be completely drawn down will now be limited to 3 months. This will update previous addendum responses for Q7/A7 provided in Addendum 2.

Q8. NRCS Construction Specification 03 Structure Removal, 3.3, B. calls for removal of “Wildlife Gate”. Please clarify the location and quantity of each wildlife gate, as we must have overlooked them in the drawings.

A8. Removal and replacement of wildlife gates will not be required as part of this project scope.

Q9. Specification 02 51 29, 3.1 Lead Paint Testing, A. states “For further details the Contractor may refer to the Lead Paint Sampling Report completed by ECS, dated March 14, 2022”. We could not locate the referenced report in the bid documents. Please provide.

A9. Please see attachment A2 of this addendum.

Q10. The contract time for substantial completion is 200 days. With the time required to write contracts, get submittals approved, and fabrication time for the gate and metal items (trash rack), and the restriction on only two sites being drawn down at any one time, we do not believe there is sufficient time to complete the work. Please add an additional 90 days to the schedule or add an administration period of 90 days to allow for submittals to be approved and fabrication to start prior to mobilization. The administrative period would still limit the time residents around the project sites are impacted but allow the contractor time to procure materials and build the project.

A10. The contract’s duration has been extended by 90 days. The updated contract period for substantial completion is now 290 days and final completion is now 320 days. Additionally, if manufacturing or procurement of materials/equipment (ex: gates) is anticipated to be a longer lead item that may not allow for the completion of the work in the designated Contract period, the Contractor may include in the bid submitted, a realistic and detailed schedule as an alternative for consideration.

Q11. Specification 31 23 00 Excavation and Fill is included but we cannot find any contour changes on the bid documents requiring excavation and backfill. The bid form lists this spec section on the stump grinding and removal items and the Owner Directed Unit Items. Is there any other work on the project that may require excavation or fills?

A11. Backfill of areas affected by tree and stump removal shall be subject to the requirements listed in Specification 31 23 00. Backfill required after tree and stump removal shall be considered incidental to the associated bid items for stump removal. The question is correct in that the current design does not call for any changes to the current site topography. Owner directed items for excavation and fill placement are included if any additional unforeseen needs arise during construction.

Q12. Does this solicitation require pre-qualification?

A12. This solicitation does not require contractors to be pre-qualified to submit a bid.

Q13. Will alternatives to the Meuller flood gates be accepted? For example, the Waterman Cast Iron Sluice gate.

A13. Requests for approval of an “approved equal” product will only be evaluated following the Bid opening. Approval of any “or equal” products submitted for consideration will be at the Owner and Engineer’s sole discretion.

Q14. What is the normal level of water?

A14. The normal pool (i.e., pool level during non-storm events) is provided on Sheet S-1 of the dam’s respective drawing set.

Q15. How many gallons per minute for a steady flow down the creek?

A15. Minimum bypass flows (7Q10) are provided in Section 31 23 19 (Dewatering) in cubic feet per second. The bypass flows may be converted to gallons per minute by multiplying by 448.83.

Q16. Does the owner decide the change order cost?

A16. Change order costs are determined on a case-by-case basis.

Q17. Are tarps acceptable for getting equipment from the street to the dam?

A17. Alternatives to the use of timber mats would be considered if they would provide similar performance (ex: protection of the dam and native lakebed from rutting; readily removal that would not permanently imbed material into the lakebed). As tarps would not be anticipated to provide similar performance to timber mats, the alternative would not be considered acceptable.

III. Attachments:

A1. Revised documents with consecutive calendar days for completion.

A2. Lead Paint Sampling Report

All bidders shall acknowledge receipt of this addendum by inserting its number and date in the Bid Form.

Failure to do so may subject the bidder to disqualification. This addendum forms a part of the Contract

Documents.

Sincerely, Brittany Bryant, CPPB

Purchasing Associate III

R3

NOTICE OF BID - PAGE 3

H-22 (LAKE WELLBROOK), H-25 (DEW LAKE), AND H-3 (HAYNES POND 3) DAMS OUTLET WORKS REHABILITATION

BID DATE: APRIL 02, 2024

BID NUMBER: BL036-24

CONSECUTIVE CALENDAR DAYS FOR COMPLETION:

290 (Substantial) / 320 (Final)

GWINNETT COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

This project does not require pre-qualification; however for contractors interested in pre-qualification, you may download the Prequalification Application at www.GwinnettCounty.com or contact Brittany Bryant at BRITTANY.BRYANT@GWINNETTCOUNTY.COM and ask that an application be sent to you. The Annual Pre- Qualification Application must be completed and submitted to the Gwinnett County Department of Financial Services - Purchasing Division-2nd Floor, 75 Langley Drive, Lawrenceville, Georgia 30046 OR via email to Brittany.Bryant@gwinnettcounty.com Depending on the scope and complexity, individual projects may require pre-qualification, independent of the annual pre-qualification process. Contractor must be pre-qualified prior to advertisement to be able to submit a bid.

http://www.gwinnettcounty.com/ mailto:BRITTANY.BRYANT@GWINNETTCOUNTY.COM mailto:Brittany.Bryant@gwinnettcounty.com

SECTION I

INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

R5

5.2 Addenda may be issued to modify Bid Document Package as deemed necessary by the Department.

6. BID SECURITY:

6.1 Each Bid shall be accompanied by Bid Security made payable to Owner in the amount equal to five percent (5%) of the Bidder's maximum Bid Price. Bid Security shall be cashier's check or Bid Bond issued by Surety meeting requirements contained in paragraph 24 below. Bid bond should be on County provided form found in the bid package. Failure to use County forms may constitute a non-responsive bid and shall be rejected.

6.2 Bid Security for Successful Bidder will be retained until Bidder has executed Agreement and furnished required payment and performance bonds. If Successful Bidder fails to furnish the qualifications submittals or fails to execute and deliver Agreement and furnish required Payment and Performance Bonds within fifteen (15) calendar days after Notice of Award, Owner may annul Notice of Award and Bidder's Bid Security will be forfeited.

In accordance with O.C.G.A §36-91-50, Bid Security may be retained by Owner until the sixty-first (61st) day after Bid opening, unless the bidder provides written notice to the County prior to the scheduled expiration date that the bid will be extended for a time period specified by the County. If Notice of Award is issued within sixty (60) calendar days after Bid opening, Bid Security for Bidder receiving Notice of Award may be retained by Owner up to sixty (60) calendar days after Notice of Award.

6.3 Bid Bond shall be issued by company having a registered agent in State of Georgia and shall comply with the additional requirements of paragraph 24 below.

7. CONTRACT TIME:

The Work shall be completed within 290 (Substantial) / 320 (Final) consecutive calendar days.

8. EXAMINATION OF BID PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS:

Bidders are advised to carefully examine the Bid Plans and Specifications for the proposed Work. The Bid Plans indicate the surface and underground structures likely to affect the prosecution of the Work insofar as they have been determined, but the information indicated is not guaranteed as being correct and complete. Bidders are expected to examine the Bid Plans and the location of the Work, verify all information with authorities concerned, and judge for themselves all the circumstances affecting the cost of the Work and the time required for its completion, and shall assume all patent and latent risks in connection therewith.

9. SOIL CONDITIONS:

R22

BID FORM

Undersigned Bidder submitting this Bid certifies and affirms that such Bid is genuine and not collusive or sham; that said Bidder has not colluded, conspired, connived, or agreed, directly or indirectly, with any Bidder or person, to put in a sham Bid, or that such other person shall refrain from bidding, and has not in any manner, directly or indirectly, sought by agreement or collusion, or communication or conference, with any person to fix the Bid Price of affiant or any other Bidder, or to fix any overhead, profit, or cost element of said Bid Price, or of that of any other Bidder, or to secure any advantage against Gwinnett County or any person interested in the proposed Contract; and that all statements contained in said Bid are true, and further, that such Bidder has not directly or indirectly submitted this Bid, or the contents thereof, or divulged information or data relative thereto to any association or to any member or agent thereof; and, that no member of Owner or other officers or employees of said Owner is interested directly or indirectly in the Bid or in any portion of the Bid nor the Contract or any part of the Contract which may be awarded the undersigned Bidder on the basis of such Bid.

The undersigned bidder acknowledges the requirements of the Plans and Specifications For the H-22 (Lake Wellbrook), H-25 (Dew Lake), and H-3 (Haynes Pond 3) Dams Outlet Works Rehabilitation. It is further understood that the above quantities are approximate, are solely for the purpose of comparing proposals, and are not represented by the Owner as an accurate statement of the actual work to be performed under the Contract.

The Bidder agrees to complete the Contract awarded within 290 (Substantial) / 320 (Final) consecutive calendar days for completion" from the date of the "Notice to Proceed" and he further agrees that the owner may retain from the monies which may become due the amount of $1,200.00 (Substantial) / $800.00 (Final) per day for each and every day that the completion of the work may be delayed.

EJCDC® C-520 (Rev. 1), Agreement Between Owner and Contractor for Construction Contract (Stipulated Price).

Copyright © 2013 National Society of Professional Engineers, American Council of Engineering Companies, and American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

With Gwinnett County DWR Modifications 06-01-16

Revised Page 2 of 8

ARTICLE 4 – CONTRACT TIMES

4.01 Time of the Essence

A. All time limits for Milestones, if any, Substantial Completion, and completion and readiness for final payment as stated in the Contract Documents are of the essence of the Contract.

4.02 Contract Times: Days

A. The Work will be substantially completed within 290 consecutive calendar days after the date when the Contract Times commence to run as provided in Paragraph

2.03 of the General Conditions, and completed and ready for final payment in accordance with Paragraph 14.07 of the General Conditions within 320 consecutive calendar days after the date when the Contract Times commence to run.

4.03 Liquidated Damages

A. Contractor and Owner recognize that time is of the essence as stated in Paragraph

4.01 above and that Owner will suffer financial and other losses if the Work is not completed and Milestones not achieved within the times specified in Paragraph

4.02 above, plus any extensions thereof allowed in accordance with the Contract.

The parties also recognize the delays, expense, and difficulties involved in proving in a legal or arbitration proceeding, the actual loss suffered by Owner if the Work is not completed on time. Accordingly, instead of requiring any such proof, Owner and Contractor agree that as liquidated damages for delay (but not as a penalty):

1. Substantial Completion: Contractor shall pay Owner $1,200.00 for each day that expires after the time (as duly adjusted pursuant to the Contract) specified in Paragraph 4.02.A above for Substantial Completion until the Work is substantially complete.

2. Completion of Remaining Work: After Substantial Completion, if Contractor shall neglect, refuse, or fail to complete the remaining Work within the Contract Times (as duly adjusted pursuant to the Contract) for completion and readiness for final payment, Contractor shall pay Owner $800.00 for each day that expires after such time until the Work is completed and ready for final payment.

3. Liquidated damages for failing to timely attain Substantial Completion and Final Completion shall be both additive and cumulative.

4.04 Special Damages

A. In addition to the amount provided for liquidated damages, Contractor shall reimburse Owner for the actual costs reasonably incurred by Owner for engineering, construction observation, inspection, and administrative services needed after the time specified in Paragraph 4.02 for Substantial Completion (as duly adjusted pursuant to the Contract), until the Work is substantially complete.

B. After Contractor achieves Substantial Completion, if Contractor shall neglect, refuse, or fail to complete the remaining Work within the Contract Times, Contractor shall reimburse Owner for the actual costs reasonably incurred by Owner for engineering, construction observation, inspection, and administrative services needed after the

LEAD PAINT SAMPLING

NINE GWINNETT COUNTY DAMS

VARIOUS LOCATIONS

GWINNETT COUNTY, GEORGIA

ECS PROJECT NO. 49:16324

FOR: GWINNETT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

MARCH 14, 2022

March 14, 2022

Mr. James Pendleton

Gwinnett County Department of Water Resources

684 Winder Highway NE

Lawrenceville, Georgia 30045

James.Pendleton@gwinnettcounty.com

ECS Project No. 49:16324

Reference: Lead Paint Sampling, Nine Gwinnett County Dams, Various Locations, Gwinnett County, Georgia

Dear Mr. Pendleton:

ECS Southeast, LLP (ECS) is pleased to provide Gwinnett County Department of Water Resources with the results of the above referenced Lead Paint Sampling performed at Nine Gwinnett County Dams located at Various Locations in Gwinnett County, 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 49:28833 and the terms and conditions of the agreement authorizing those services.

ECS appreciates this opportunity to provide Gwinnett County Department of Water Resources with our services. If we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely, ECS Southeast, LLP

Nathan Shelp Lindsey Lucas, REM Assistant Staff Project Manager Environmental Principal NShelp@ecslimited.com LLucas1@ecslimited.com 470-451-2103 864-345-0809

1281 Kennestone Circle NE, Suite 200, Marietta, Georgia 30066 • T: 770-590-1971 • F: 704-357-0023 • ecslimited.com

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The subject properties consist of nine lake riser structures reportedly originally constructed prior to 1976. At the time of our survey, the subject structures were utilized to maintain the primary lake elevation. Each of the visited structures were in-use and scheduled to be retrofitted in the future.

The purpose of the Lead Paint Sampling was to identify lead-containing paints (LCPs) that may be present on each riser structure scheduled to be impacted by the retrofitting activities. The assessment was limited to the pit covers of the riser structures.

On February 17, 2022, Mr. Nathan Shelp, an accredited inspector, collected paint chip samples for analysis. Samples of lead paint were collected and submitted to EMSL in Kernersville, North Carolina for analysis via Flame AAS (SW 846 3050B/7000B). Paint and surface coatings which contain detectable concentrations of lead are 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. Nine paint chip samples were submitted for analysis. Lead concentrations above the reporting limit (but below EPA definition of an actual lead-based paint) were detected in two of the samples collected from the following:

• H-25 and H-3 Cast Iron Pit Cover (Dark Green Base, Light Green Top)

Recommendations regarding the handling and disposal of LCPs identified by ECS can be found in Section 5.0 of this report.

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

ECS Project # 49:16324

PAGETABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.0 PURPOSE

3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Lead in Paint and Surface Coatings

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 Lead in Paint and Surface Coatings

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

5.1 Lead in Paint and Surface Coatings

6.0 LIMITATIONS

TABLE OF APPENDICES

Appendix I: Figures

Appendix II: Site Photographs

Appendix III: Lead Laboratory Analytical Results

1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

The subject sites are each improved with a dam and a riser structure reportedly constructed prior to 1976. Each riser maintains a general water elevation of the water body of which it is located in.

The subject sites are as follows:

Location 1: 3254 Clubside View Court, Snellville, Georgia 30039 (N-1)

Location 2: 3435 Wellbrook Drive, Loganville, Georgia 30052 (H-22)

Location 3: 2766 Camry Lane SW, Grayson, Georgia 30017 (H-25)

Location 4: 1225 Lakeridge Court, Grayson, Georgia 30017 (H-3)

Location 5: 1976 New Hope Road, Lawrenceville, Georgia 30045 (TM-1)

Location 6: 828 Blue Heather Court, Lawrenceville, Georgia 30045 (Y-3)

Location 7: 1117 Christiana Crossing, Lawrenceville, Georgia 30043 (Y-14)

Location 8: 2332 Merrymount Drive, Suwanee, Georgia 30024 (Y-16)

Location 9: 4919 Duncan Lake Point NE, Buford, Georgia 30519 (M-7)

At the time of the surveys, the structures were in-use and scheduled to be retrofitted.

2.0 PURPOSE

The purpose of the Lead Paint Sampling was to identify lead-containing paint (LCP) which may require special handling and/or disposal if removed during construction activities. The identification of LCP or other lead hazards may require 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 LCPs.

3.1 Lead in Paint and Surface Coatings

The Lead Paint survey was performed by collecting paint chip samples to identify lead concentrations in painted and glazed surfaces. Samples were collected and placed into appropriate sample bags and delivered to EMSL in Kernersville, North Carolina, a laboratory participating in the National Voluntary Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLLAP).

The survey was conducted utilizing the U.S. EPA definition of lead paint. Under this definition, painted surfaces which contain lead in concentrations equal to or greater than 0.5% by weight are classified as coated with lead paint. Paints with concentrations of lead detectable by laboratory

March 14, 2022 analysis are considered lead-containing paints. Because the scope of the work is limited to the roof top replacement area, the scope of the lead survey was not conducted in accordance with HUD Chapter 7 requirements.

4.0 RESULTS

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

4.1 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 nine (9) paint chip samples were collected during the survey. Analytical results represented by a "<" (less than) result signifies the analyte was not detected at or above the reporting limit. Paint and other surface coatings which are defined by applicable regulation as lead-containing paints are summarized in the table below.

Summary of Lead-Containing Paint Results and Condition

Sample I.D. / Location

Paint Color Substrate Component Condition

Analytical Results (% wt)

PC1-1 / 3254

Clubside View Court (N-1)

Dark Green Base Light Green Top

Cast Iron Pit Cover Fair <0.036

PC2-1 / 3435

Wellbrook Drive (H-22)

Dark Green Base Light Green Top

Cast Iron Pit Cover Fair <0.015

PC3-1 / 2766 Camry Lane SW (H-25)

Dark Green Base Light Green Top

Cast Iron Pit Cover Fair 0.040

March 14, 2022

Sample I.D. / Location

Paint Color Substrate Component Condition

Analytical Results (% wt)

PC4-1 / 1225

Lakeridge Court (H-3)

Dark Green Base Light Green Top

Cast Iron Pit Cover Fair 0.087

PC5-1 / 1976 New Hope Road (TM-1)

Black Cast Iron Pit Cover Fair <0.017

PC6-1 / 828 Blue Heather Court (Y-3)

Dark Green Base Light Green Top

Cast Iron Pit Cover Fair <0.082

PC7-1 / 1117

Christiana Crossing (Y-14)

Dark Green Base Light Green Top

Cast Iron Pit Cover Fair <0.040

PC8-1 / 2332

Merrymount Drive (Y-16)

Dark Green Base Light Green Top

Cast Iron Pit Cover Fair <0.008

PC9-1 / 4919 Duncan Lake Point NE (M-7)

Dark Green Base Light Green Top

Cast Iron Pit Cover Fair <0.027

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

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

March 14, 2022

5.1 Lead in Paint and Surface Coatings

Based on the findings of the lead survey, detectable concentrations of lead were identified.

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).”

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 Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 50 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) as an 8-hour Time Weighted Average (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 lead-containing paint.

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.

March 14, 2022

Appendix I: Figures

LEGEND

RISER STRUCTURE LOCATION

SOURCE: GOOGLE MAPS

FIGURE 1 – LOCATION N-1 SITE AERIAL MAP

NINE GWINNETT COUNTY DAMS

3254 CLUBSIDE VIEW COURT

SNELLVILLE, GEORGIA 30039

ECS PROJECT NO. 49-16324

FIGURE 2 – LOCATION N-1 PAINT CHIP SAMPLE

LOCATION MAP

NINE GWINNETT COUNTY DAMS

3254 CLUBSIDE VIEW COURT

SNELLVILLE, GEORGIA 30039

ECS PROJECT NO. 49-16324

LEGEND

PCX-X SAMPLE NUMBER

LEAD-CONTAINING PAINT (<0.5% BY WEIGHT)

NOTES: NOT TO SCALE

PC1-1

SOURCE: GOOGLE MAPS

FIGURE 3 – LOCATION H-22 SITE AERIAL MAP

NINE GWINNETT COUNTY DAMS

3435 WELLBROOK DRIVE

LOGANVILLE, GEORGIA 30052

FIGURE 4 – LOCATION H-22 PAINT CHIP SAMPLE

NINE GWINNETT COUNTY DAMS

3435 WELLBROOK DRIVE

LOGANVILLE, GEORGIA 30052

ECS PROJECT NO. 49-16324

LEGEND

PCX-X SAMPLE NUMBER

LEAD-CONTAINING PAINT (<0.5% BY WEIGHT)

PC2-1

SOURCE: GOOGLE MAPS

FIGURE 5 – LOCATION H-25 SITE AERIAL MAP

NINE GWINNETT COUNTY DAMS

2766 CAMRY LANE SW

GRAYSON, GEORGIA 30017

FIGURE 6 – LOCATION H-25 PAINT CHIP SAMPLE

NINE GWINNETT COUNTY DAMS

2766 CAMRY LANE SW

GRAYSON, GEORGIA 30017

ECS PROJECT NO. 49-16324

LEGEND

PCX-X SAMPLE NUMBER

LEAD-CONTAINING PAINT (<0.5% BY WEIGHT)

PC3-1

SOURCE: GOOGLE MAPS

FIGURE 7 – LOCATION H-3 SITE AERIAL MAP

NINE GWINNETT COUNTY DAMS

1225 LAKERIDGE COURT

GRAYSON, GEORGIA 30017

FIGURE 8 – LOCATION H-3 PAINT CHIP SAMPLE

NINE GWINNETT COUNTY DAMS

1225 LAKERIDGE COURT

GRAYSON, GEORGIA 30017

ECS PROJECT NO. 49-16324

LEGEND

PCX-X SAMPLE NUMBER

LEAD-CONTAINING PAINT (<0.5% BY WEIGHT)

PC4-1

SOURCE: GOOGLE MAPS

FIGURE 9 – LOCATION TM-1 SITE AERIAL MAP

NINE GWINNETT COUNTY DAMS

1976 NEW HOPE ROAD

LAWRENCEVILLE, GEORGIA 30045

FIGURE 10 – LOCATION TM-1 PAINT CHIP SAMPLE

NINE GWINNETT COUNTY DAMS

1976 NEW HOPE ROAD

LAWRENCEVILLE, GEORGIA 30045

ECS PROJECT NO. 49-16324

LEGEND

PCX-X SAMPLE NUMBER

LEAD-CONTAINING PAINT (<0.5% BY WEIGHT)

PC5-1

SOURCE: GOOGLE MAPS

FIGURE 11 – LOCATION Y-3 SITE AERIAL MAP

NINE GWINNETT COUNTY DAMS

828 BLUE HEATHER COURT

LAWRENCEVILLE, GEORGIA 30045

FIGURE 12 – LOCATION Y-3 PAINT CHIP SAMPLE

NINE GWINNETT COUNTY DAMS

828 BLUE HEATHER COURT

LAWRENCEVILLE, GEORGIA 30045

ECS PROJECT NO. 49-16324

LEGEND

PCX-X SAMPLE NUMBER

LEAD-CONTAINING PAINT (<0.5% BY WEIGHT)

PC6-1

SOURCE: GOOGLE MAPS

FIGURE 13 – LOCATION Y-14 SITE AERIAL MAP

NINE GWINNETT COUNTY DAMS

1117 CHRISTIANA CROSSING

LAWRENCEVILLE, GEORGIA 30043

FIGURE 14 – LOCATION Y-14 PAINT CHIP SAMPLE

NINE GWINNETT COUNTY DAMS

1117 CHRISTIANA CROSSING

LAWRENCEVILLE, GEORGIA 30043

ECS PROJECT NO. 49-16324

LEGEND

PCX-X SAMPLE NUMBER

LEAD-CONTAINING PAINT (<0.5% BY WEIGHT)

PC7-1

SOURCE: GOOGLE MAPS

FIGURE 15 – LOCATION Y-16 SITE AERIAL MAP

NINE GWINNETT COUNTY DAMS

2332 MERRYMOUNT DRIVE

SUWANEE, GEORGIA 30024

FIGURE 16 – LOCATION Y-16 PAINT CHIP SAMPLE

NINE GWINNETT COUNTY DAMS

2332 MERRYMOUNT DRIVE

SUWANEE, GEORGIA 30024

ECS PROJECT NO. 49-16324

LEGEND

PCX-X SAMPLE NUMBER

LEAD-CONTAINING PAINT (<0.5% BY WEIGHT)

PC8-1

SOURCE: GOOGLE MAPS

FIGURE 17 – LOCATION M-7 SITE AERIAL MAP

NINE GWINNETT COUNTY DAMS

4919 DUNCANS LAKE POINT NE

BUFORD, GEORGIA 30519

FIGURE 18 – LOCATION M-7 PAINT CHIP SAMPLE

NINE GWINNETT COUNTY DAMS

4919 DUNCAN LAKE POINT NE

BUFORD, GEORGIA 30519

ECS PROJECT NO. 49-16324

LEGEND

PCX-X SAMPLE NUMBER

LEAD-CONTAINING PAINT (<0.5% BY WEIGHT)

PC9-1

Appendix II: Site Photographs

1 - View of Location 1 (N-1) Riser

2 - View of Location 2 (H-22) Riser

3 - View of Location 3 (H-25) Riser

4 - View of Location 4 (H-3) Riser

5 - View of Location 4 (H-3) Cast Iron Pit Cover

6 - View of Location 5 (TM-1) Cast Iron Pit Cover

7 - View of Location 6 (Y-3) Riser

8 - View of Location 7 (Y-14) Spillway

9 - View of Location 7 (Y-14) Riser

10 - View of Location 7 (Y-14) Cast Iron Pit Cover

11 - View of Location 9 (M-7) Cast Iron Pit Cover

Appendix III: Lead Laboratory Analytical Results

Client Sample Description ConcentrationLab ID Analyzed Weight Lead

Collected

EMSL Analytical, Inc.

706 Gralin Street, Kernersville, NC 27284 Phone/Fax: (336) 992-1025 / (336) 992-4175 http://www.EMSL.com greensborolab@emsl.com

Attn: Nathan Shelp ECS Southeast, LLP 1200 Woodruff Road Suite H-12 Greenville, SC 29607

Received: 2/18/2022 09:00 AM

Gwinnett County 9 Dams 16324

Fax: (864) 987-1615 Phone: (864) 987-1610

Project:

Collected:

Test Report: Lead in Paint Chips by Flame AAS (SW 846 3050B/7000B)*

022201147 CustomerID: ENCS55 CustomerPO:

ProjectID:

EMSL Order:

.0549 Site: Cast Iron/Dark Green Base Light Top 022201147-0001PC1-1 <0.036 % wt2/22/2022 g

.1352 Site: Cast Iron/Dark Green Base Light Top 022201147-0002PC2-1 <0.015 % wt2/22/2022 g

.0621 Site: Cast Iron/Dark Green Base Light Top 022201147-0003PC3-1 0.040 % wt2/22/2022 g

.0834 Site: Cast Iron/Dark Green Base Light Top 022201147-0004PC4-1 0.087 % wt2/22/2022 g

.1199 Site: Cast Iron/Black Paint 022201147-0005PC5-1 <0.017 % wt2/22/2022 g

.0244 Site: Cast Iron/Dark Green Base Light Top 022201147-0006PC6-1 <0.082 % wt2/22/2022 g

.0494 Site: Cast Iron/Dark Green Base Light Top 022201147-0007PC7-1 <0.040 % wt2/22/2022 g

.2608 Site: Cast Iron/Dark Green Base Light Top 022201147-0008PC8-1 <0.0080 % wt2/22/2022 g

.0737 Site: Cast Iron/Dark Green Base Light Top 022201147-0009PC9-1 <0.027 % wt2/22/2022 g

James Cole, Laboratory Manager or other approved signatory

Test Report ChmSnglePrm/nQC-7.32.3 Printed: 2/23/2022 7:40:17 AM

EMSL maintains liability limited to cost of analysis. Interpretation and use of test results are the responsibility of the client. This report relates only to the samples reported above, and may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval by EMSL. EMSL bears no responsibility for sample collection activities or analytical method limitations. The report reflects the samples as received.

Results are generated from the field sampling data (sampling volumes and areas, locations, etc.) provided by the client on the Chain of Custody. Samples are within quality control criteria and met method specifications unless otherwise noted.

* Analysis following Lead in Paint by EMSL SOP/Determination of Environmental Lead by FLAA. Reporting limit is 0.008% wt based on the minimum sample weight per our SOP. "<" (less than) result signifies the analyte was not detected at or above the reporting limit. Measurement of uncertainty is available upon request. Definitions of modifications are available upon request.

Samples analyzed by EMSL Analytical, Inc. Kernersville, NC EMSL Lab ID 102564 is accredited by the AIHA Laboratory Accreditation Program (AIHA-LAP), LLC in the Environmental Lead accreditation program for Lead in Paint Chips.

Initial report from 02/23/2022 07:40:17

OrderID: 022201147

OrderID: 022201147

E. The reports and drawings identified above are not part of the Contract Documents, but the “technical data” contained therein upon which Contractor may rely, as expressly identified and established above, are incorporated in the Contract Documents b...