WQ0000020 Aville Arpt Coorespondence 8-'18 - 12-'18

Laverty, Brett
From: Toepfer, John R <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2018 1:18 PM
To: Laverty, Brett
Cc: Davidson, Landon; Sullivan, Ed M; Hanchey, Matthew F.; Czop, Ryan; Williams, Teresa
Lynne; Woodward, Tina; Pruett, Jeremy J.; Sheetz, Bryson; Raber, Maverick James; Pickett,
Matt; Webb, Kathy-synterracorp; McNash, James-geosyntec; Michael A. Reisman
([e-mail]); John Coon [e-mail]); Nordgren, Scott R.; Hill, Tim S.;
Moeller, Bryan Thomas
Subject: [External]Asheville Airport November 2018 Sampling Event Results
Attachments: Asheville Airport Fill GW&SW November 2018 Compiled.pdf
m Externale aii. Do not click nKnKs—IcI open attachments=unless verrf�ed.=Seri aLl=s�tspicro s ma lfas n aaae:merit to
--all
o
Brett—two copies of the attached have been sent to the Information Processing Unit per permit WQ0000020. This
submittal to you is only being sent via email. Please let me know of questions on the attached.
cc line—file accordingly, no hard copies are being sent. thanks
John R. Toepfer, P.E.
Duke Energy
Lead Engineer
410 S. Wilmington Street/NC15
Raleigh, NC 27601
919-546-7863 phone
919-632-3714 cell
919-546-3669 fax
1

Laverty, Brett
From: Toepfer, John R <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2018 11:43 AM
To: Laverty, Brett
Cc: Sullivan, Ed M; Czop, Ryan; Pruett, Jeremy J.; Hill, Tim S.; Nordgren, Scott R.; Pickett, Matt;
Williams, Teresa Lynne;.Woodward, Tina; Walls, Jason A; Kafka, Michael T.; Hanchey,
Matthew F.; McIntire, Mark D; Culbert, Erin; McNash, James-geosyntec; Michael A. Reisman
([e-mail]); John Coon ([e-mail]); Damasceno, Victor-Geosyntec
Subject: [External] November 2018 Surveying Results-Asheville Airport Area I
Attachments: ARA_Area 1 CAP Stability Report_Signed.pdf; Copy of Airport Area 1 Piezometers and
Survey Data November 2018.xlsx
® =`ernalie.mail.Do not cEickiinks-orapen$attashments unlessAverifiedSe�d�fl-susp�civus enal�as an attachment to
Brett- Below and attached is the information from the November 2018 survey at Asheville Airport Area along with
Geosyntec's observation (this continues from the October surveying results submitted to you on November 15, 2018):
Geosyntec received on December 5, 2018 the surveying field information collected by McKim &Creed on November 28,
2018 for the ARA Area 1 slope pin monitoring system (Transects A through N).
For Transects A through J, Geosyntec compared the data against the baseline survey collected October 4, 2017 and
computed the relative movement. For Transects K through N, Geosyntec compared the data against the baseline survey
collected November 15, 2017.
In October 2018,temporary grading improvements on the east cell top deck and additional riprap placement at the east
cell slope toe inadvertently damaged or obscured select slope pins. In early November 2018, Geosyntec visited Area 1 to
locate and/or replace damaged slope pins identified during the October 15, 2018 survey event. Replaced slope pins
were denoted in the field with an "-R" suffix and the November 28, 2018 event serves as the baseline survey for these
slope pins,which were highlighted in the attached spreadsheet.
As described previously and provided in the 90-day report, starting with December 12, 2017 survey data, computations
were updated to present the direction of displacement in the lateral (xy) direction as an angle (°). In addition,the
magnitude of displacement is calculated for both the lateral direction and elevation to better distinguish between
possible slope movements and subsidence, respectively. Per corrective action item 7(a) and 7(b) in NCDEQ's Review of
the 90-Day Report Submittal and Required Interim Measures Letter, dated April 30, 2018, Geosyntec revised the slope
pin movement reporting tolerance to 0.2-ft for recently collected data.
Geosyntec's observations are as follows:
• Slope pins Al, 131, C1, C2, D1 to D3, E2, E3, F1, F3, G1 to G3; H1 to 1-13, 16, 17; and J6 were replaced/relocated and
a baseline survey established. These slope pins are reported with the"-R" suffix.
• Slope pins D6, D7, and J2 were computed with potential lateral displacements greater than 0.2-ft. reporting limit
since the baseline survey event.
• Slope pin G6 was computed with potential settlements greater than the 0.2-ft reporting limit since the baseline
survey event.
Based on this information,the slope does not appear to have significantly displaced since the baseline survey events.
Slope pih J2 was calculated with potential displacements that exceed the tolerance consistently through the slope
monitoring program, but does not appear to have moved further. In addition, Geosyntec will inspect the slope adjacent

to D6, D7,✓and G6 and the tem orar � a stabilization areas during an u comii. a e inspection event to assess the
p Y N' p g p a�• p p
condition of the slope.
Note the December 2018 field surveying event was completed earlier this week and the data has not yet been received
back from McKim &Creed. We anticipate to provide the December 2018 surveying results to DEQ around mid-January
2019. Also attached is the stability analysis letter report prepared by Geosyntec dated December 13, 2018. Please let
me know of any questions on the attached information. thanks
John R. Toepfer, P.E.
Duke Energy
Lead Engineer
410 S. Wilmington Street/NC15
Raleigh, NC 27601
919-546-7863 phone
919-632-3714 cell
919-546-3669 fax
2

Laverty, Brett
From: Davidson, Landon
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 12:25 PM
To: Laverty, Brett
Subject: Fwd: [External]Asheville Airport-2018 Structural Fill Annual Report
Attachments: Coverletter.pdf; 2018 Asheville Airport Annual Inspection Report- FINAL.PDF; Structural Fill
Project Permit WQ0000020.pdf
G. Landon Davidson, P.G.
Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Operations Section
Asheville Regional Office
From: Kooser, Diana L.<[e-mail]>
Sent:Wednesday, December 19, 2018 12:05:57 PM
To: Davidson, Landon
Cc:Toepfer,John R; Kafka, Michael T.; Pickett, Matt; Kooser, Diana L.; Hill,Tim S.; Nordgren, Scott R.; Karably, Ken; CCP
Records
Subject: [External] Asheville Airport-2018 Structural Fill Annual Report
® xter al-email. De not click lin s or open a 'achment to
Mr. Davidson,
Please find the attached cover letter and related documents regarding the 2018 Structural Fill Annual Report for
Asheville Regional Airport.
If you have any questions or need clarification regarding the information provided,feel free to contact Randy Hart at
[e-mail] or 980-373-5630 at your convenience.
Note to Duke distribution—All documents can be found in FileNet XT.
Thank you.
Diana L. Kooser
Regulatory Affairs Specialist
Coal Combustion Products
400 South Tryon Street, Charlotte,NC 28202 ST-06K
(Office)980-373-6378
(Cell)704-430-2476
Diana.Kooserkduke-ever com
DUKE
ENERGY.
i

George T.Hamrick
, •� DUKE Confer ice President
Coal Combustion Products
ENERGY. 400Soulh rrymStreet,ST06A
Charlotte,NC28202
Phone:[phone] f3
Emafl'[e-mail]
December 19,2018
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Mr.G.Landon Davidson,P.G.
Regional Supervisor-Asheville Regional Office
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality(NCDEQ)-Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
2090 U.S.Highway 70
Swannanoa,North Carolina 28711
RE: 2018 Structural Fill Annual Report
Coal Combustion Products Structural Fill Permit No.WQ0000020
Asheville Regional Airport
Buncombe County
Dear Mr. Davidson:
In accordance with Section V.2 of the Asheville Regional Airport Coal Combustion Products Structural Fill Permit No.
WQ0000020,please accept the attached 2017 Structural Fill'Annual Inspection Report.
If you have any questions or need clarification regarding the information provided,feel free to contact Randy Hart at
Randy.Hart0duke-eneay.com or(980)373-5630 at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
George T.Hamrick
Senior Vice President
w/attachment: 2018 Asheville Regional Airport Structural Fill Annual Inspection Report(12-17-2018);Structural Fill
Permit#WQ0000020
Duke Energy cc: John Toepfer,Mike Kafka,Matt Pickett,Diana Kooser,Tim Bill,Scott Nordgren,Ken Karably

DUKE
ENERGY®
2018 Structural Fill Annual Report
Asheville Regional Airport
Introduction
This document serves as the Annual Inspection Report(Report) required by Condition V.2.of NCDENR
(now NCDEQ) Permit No.WQ0000020(Permit) issued to Duke Energy on September.2, 2015.
Pursuant to the Permit,an annual inspection report shall be submitted on or before December 31 of
each year. Quarterly inspections shall be performed that log observations pertaining to the integrity of
intermediary and permanent caps,structural integrity, erosion,condition of liner systems,stormwater
collection systems and condition of monitoring wells. Quarterly inspections shall contain the following,
at a minimum:
• Date and time of each report;
• Name and title of the inspectors;
• Observation results on structural integrity,erosion, liner systems, integrity of the cap system,
stormwater collection systems,condition of monitoring wells,settlement,subsidence,seepage,
and presence of woody vegetation;
• Description and photo documentation of any pertinent issues such as breach in liner system,
excavations within 3 feet of the liner system,erosion,development of depressions,slope
movement, damage to monitoring wells, and groundwater seepage;
• Any maintenance, repairs,or corrective actions taken;
• An annual engineer's certification of the evaluation on the structural integrity and stability of
the ash fill areas.
Annual Report Summary and Observations
In accordance with the Permit conditions, Duke Energy performed regular inspections of the structural
fill areas at the Asheville Regional Airport(Airport) in 2018. Duke Energy was issued a Notice of Violation
No. NOV-2015-PC-0303 (NOV) on December 2,2015.
Duke Energy agreed to perform monthly inspections until all issues in the NOV were addressed.
Subsequently, quarterly inspections would resume per the permit. Repairs and maintenance of the
1

items in the NOV were finalized in mid-2016 and Duke returned to quarterly inspections as outlined in
the Permit.
Matt Pickett, a Lead Engineer for Duke Energy CCP Engineering, performed all quarterly inspections.The
areas inspected included Area 1,Area 3, and Area 4 located at the Airport.
Inspection Date Inspection Type.
1 February 15, 2018 Quarterly
2, April 5,2018 Quarterly
3 July 9, 2018 Quarterly
4 1 November 20, 2018 Quarterly
In addition to the quarterly inspections, Duke Energy began making weekly inspections to monitor
conditions at Area 1 following the September 2017 inspection to monitor Area 1 and provide feedback
to DEQ.The weekly inspections will not be summarized in this Annual Report.
Based on observations from a September 7, 2017 inspection, DEQ was notified of possible exposed ash
on the north slope of Area 1. Subsequently, DEQ requested additional information to be submitted as
well as additional monitoring of Area 1. DEQ issued an official Notice of Violation on November 17,
2017.The NOV outlined an extensive list of items to be provided in a report by December 29,2017.A
report was submitted on December 29, 2017"Response to Notice of Violation (NOV-2017-PC-0616)."
DEQ reviewed the report and responded with a letter"Review of 90-day Report Submittal and Required
Interim Measures"on April 30, 2018.
In response to the DEQ letter, a list of thirteen interim measures were to be addressed by December 31,
2018.The table below addresses the status of these items.
Requirement Status
1. Conceptual Hydrogeologic Model To be submitted under separate cover by
December 31, 2018.
2. Piezometric Surface Investigation Wells were installed to monitor conditions as
requested. Results to be submitted under.separate
cover by December 31, 2018.
3. Monitoring Well Installation Three additional wells were installed per request
during week of August 8, 2018. Water levels are -
submitted monthly.
4. Piezometric and Phreatic Surface Transducers were installed at wells PZ-2, PZ-3, PZ-
Monitoring 4, PZ-5 per request during week of August 8, 2018.
Records are submitted monthly.
5. Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Report dated October 3, 2018 was submitted to
Investigation NCDEQ on October 15, 2018 along with September
survey data.
6. GCL Evaluation Report dated September 21, 2018 was submitted
to NCDEQ on October 15, 2018 along with
September survey data.
2

Requirement Status
w _ _. ,.e
sae e .
7. Slope Stability Monitoring Monthly surveys have continued as well as visual
inspections and inclinometer readings. Geosyntec
compiled a quarterly report for the 3rd Quarter.
This report was dated October 31, 2018. It was
submitted on November 15,2018 with the
October surveying results.
8. Slope Stability Analysis—Sensitivity This report has been completed and will be
Analysis submitted with the November surveying results.
9. Slope Stability Analysis- liquefaction This report has been completed and will be
,submitted with the November surveying results.
10. Surface Water Monitoring Additional surface water monitoring(quarterly)
was completed in November 2018.
11.Surface Water Assessment Additional one-time surface water monitoring
event Was completed in November 2018.
12.Analytical Results Analytical results from November 29, 2017 surface
water investigation were provided to NCDEQ.
13. Camera Inspection The engineering report and camera evaluation of
the RCP pipe was provided to NCDEQ in June 2018.
Site Overview
Figure 1 on the following page depicts the areas in relation to the Airport facilities:Area 1 on the
northeast corner of the property,Area 3 west of the runway to the north,and Area 4 to the west of the
runway and to the south.
3

�. _. ...,._... .��4,�. ._____ - ._. z �, a>v ^^ [/ r�,��,... { {l"..- ��� �rxj'F fir£""`'- ri ,t•''v"� °''ri,�" �`�+y+�
rk P/r A .dn ir, ''i{� 4jPAY
a, y
' u
� Sys n � � t- C°s 1 t 51 o- + � �I� v R�rh� ^, ♦,
"t'
*'k`'.s ,� �� *.,'ur�, y� 7a7"`•�` � �R1L i � h { 1"�� r`3�t�1 �t- �"+z
(. t,l
);`•'1>. 4-� 4w a�� l7R'�IY�'�ri �.' t rJ�'* � µ* � „���. � 1�t !f ;;.,
v.
i t i k
.s ` ,-�,�'� �"t�gx - '� •;. a�i�£' �� 8 �' � x�s�,q fir�,��z� ,*# ���f , ;`��"� A^ ,a���,
t '�fS C.r'S�{{a '�k r Y AIy'•x .l� .hex ' '' t, ( I -.,�r� t.
+1S,`
k
W
BO�RROWPIT
11
..\ate r fi
S$
I � y 4jt t i
' 2� dt' ��. to 'fir+y � � � _"fix� " �� �'i '`1 �. Yt >�.y`•.°i 5 t�,(���r tY �" � �q�xy����C
. a w.=�.,� - ] •}yr�^ hid � �� t��' �I.
_ J, [ �'`�^e" "1�� "C`�L ! yy��'� ,.°fir � �` N �'YiY✓ ��,'� S��gE9�b�#"d'i '
1 � �.�.au x.�4,%%r. �VV; 1 r tw i• r_, }£ � �,,,,e d � _T
, t
w
r m ��� �tz � i a�t^FIc' s�� .,°��y� �. " �� z�• 9�q ��#a,�.� ���„�}7 �..�� _ �^, F..
754' it t I'r�v�" a� :Y"".fi �S r �l od'
X
j �.�I. J'i ,,r,, „ m,:rr _��..+ y� h irG s, �y q„vQ, 4.
7ASHEVILLE'REGION ALAIRPORA
T tn`• < wa.ty \ `r �vt' C,r tfg �
'Alt
.' i 'ay1 Y.f 1tt x •ry. ?. +... 3
CL
��,} �..�' � 1, '1`��,,,�'�i S:. �b 4 � "��� � �• . � ��� ,yti�3�ti< t.� s�` o � D
i a• d5r NA,
t1�
y
`{
j, ,
11
P�Ta k„1
FJ,'k. !+'t aF.�"+r lrSur 'S ''l, i , z"r "»..+� a , iOE 4 a°�icl' dL-,�tjrlN'• s ,
r ,:M k9 fit' ""bd S4 i4
rl
� toAll
x '
•&t
}� g +��.
�'n+y�.._ ..""�.•l k"}i"� �� t,��. y t � } ter .;a
}
M �
�'�. ,£
'�+"r�����7��h �Q?�. �� r 'Plh, ®3Ir� ha^ey+,,+ L'' z ��"��' !„ �, h },�, ���9•4 fill � ""�J� �"�� ,P
I ire I.
tPy
Skvtw `L .."� a 1 k. �' 2" Ir,
'� �p'r %%tGC�. '*'`tr�t� r �o �; � F,., 'a '�r„ y3 _� $ '� .�F•�S �,'" +�a� > r
r � ,� " s�`�x� Gd�� _�^�:�aga4 + . .,t � r •, z'ti. 'a"t r"w, y;� .t as�A k � I
l
r�T&, ,k"y"� yr� 7 ^iP �r�z•: ��r _..... �� r�A "� r� �Ma�.'�' ��µ "l a
b "� -a��pf r � x �°"r`,^zr,a�� �`. ".:�� � � ,u, 11 �r � ,� ` ,� :y f ✓" ,t�
i ,
{
-�- .:it �T'�`n .."" r dt�H ,vr m' '•M n '� ^t +'-c�fi"r.r^.

Area 1
The Area 1 ash fill, completed in the fall of 2010, is an approximately 18-acre fill area on the north end of
the Airport located east of the runway.The fill area is designed to slope north at a 2.5%grade across the
top of the fill area.The outer slope of the fill was built to a 33%(3H:1V)slope.A wetland area,
stormwater structures, and outfalls are located at the north toe of the Area 1 slope.
There is a 100-foot wide compacted soil core over the length of a 60-inch diameter stormwater pipe that
transects the ash fill.The pipe flows south to north and is part of drainage from the Airport runway
areas.The compacted soil core is to ensure that ash is not located within 50 feet of a stormwater pipe.
Area 1 is lined with geosynthetic clay liner(GCL) on the bottom.The cap system for the area is a
vegetated compacted soil cover.The top of the fill system with the 2.5%grade is constructed with a 6-
foot thick soil cap.The outer slopes are constructed with a 2-foot thick soil cap as designed.The detail
for the cap is shown in the figure below.The detail shown below is from the drawing set"Asheville
Regional Airport-Fly Ash Beneficial Use Project," issued by Charah, revised December 2007.
{')TOP OF FILL -B'
SIDE SLOPES-2'
{•)COMPACTED
SOIL CAP l/
ASH PLACEMENT .
24" � p}A%1%tU cMsec
e GEOSYTHETICCLAY
I +I1B" �RF 'LINER MATERLAL
MU 6
TYPICAL LINER SECTION
N.T.S
Figure 2-Typical cap and liner detail for Area I
Area I Observations
Area 1 underwent extensive repairs during 2016. Repairs to the area were completed and finalized in
September 2016.The Annual Report for 2016 showed Area 1 to be in good condition in December 2016
with the re-graded slopes in good condition and having established vegetation. In December of 2017 a
portion of the slope was repaired to cover exposed ash and in response to the Notice of Violation (NOV-
2017-PC-0616).The repair included covering the exposed ash.with sand, non-woven geotextile and rip-
rap.The repair's dimensions are approximately 130-ft long and 30-ft wide.
1st Quarter Inspection-February 15,2018
The first quarterly inspection did not note any structural changes to the fill area nor exposed ash. Some
minor erosion and wet areas were noted.A scarp noted in previous inspections along the toe of the
bench road.This area was repaired with similar stabilization repair for the north slope. Figures 1 and 2
below show the repaired areas.
5

NW N NE E
I . 30 •I •t 120
L 0 50°NE_(T) OO 356447025°, ::, i,542412°+98 4ft �,2106ft`'. 's
N
Y
s< ..
Photo 1-Area 1 showing the repair at the north toe to cover and stabilize
exposed ash(February 2018)
I 1 30 60 90 120
®53'NEITi8Z 542709°±16 4ft`#r2086ft,
r ,
ME
t
b
Photo 2-Area 1 showing the repair of the scarp along the north bench road
(February 2018)
2nd Quarter Inspection-April 5,2018
The second quarterly inspection did not note any structural changes to the fill area.Similar conditions
were noted as in the first quarter inspection. Items noted included minor erosion rills, areas of sparse
vegetation and some standing water. Figure 3 below shows an area near the security fence where water
would accumulate as it could not flow over the concrete base.
6

0 •I IC SVV
" 180 210
0;149°SE(T) OO 35.446076',-82.542694°f16.4ft A 2143ft
--
x
r
Photo 3-Area 1 showing depression along the security fence with standing
water(April 2018)
3nd Quarter Inspection—July 9,2018
The third quarterly inspection noted similar conditions to previous quarterly reports. High vegetation on
the west slope made for some areas to be inaccessible.
4th Quarter Inspection-November 20,2018
In September,construction was completed to install temporary stabilization measures to address items
noted in the letter"Review of 90--day Report Submittal and Required Interim Measures."The items
included additional riprap to extend the existing repair further east(Photo 4),additional buttress in the
existing repair(Photo 5), installation of lined channels to drain water away from the north slope(Photo
6), HDPE downdrain pipes(Photo 7), pipe outlet stabilization (Photo 7)and filling in low areas to
improve drainage (Photo 8).The north slope riprap was extended approximately 70-ft to the east.
-r
Photo 4-View of repair extended 70-ft to the east(November 2018)
7

35.Q47Z. . .... W
ae�e 1
�-•� •�.. fir^ sue, � � � �� �,�,� `1 ,
x L
`lUu'ae" `i� I3I 240�'-� JI�r W4=I Rio/iot?s�:
w
r 71
tr. ' iR1\\",,"�"tip
AN 1545

g
CW % a a �r 4
E �
Photo 8-View of repaired depression from Photo 3 near security fence(November 2018)
Area 1 Corrective Actions
From the 2017 Annual Report,the following corrective actions were listed to be completed in 2018.
_ AREA 1
Obsorvatioh Recommendation
1. Standing Water/Seep Continue to monitor. ,` Geosyntec Consultants s preparing
at toe of eastern fill'. closure design to address,eappin°g of .
Area 1 and perimeter drainage.
" 2.. Missing-animal guard Install animal guardandclear 'As heville Airport notified °
,.
at low flow drain n vegetation around the,outlet g
outlet pipe,
3. Three temporary Continue to monitor- Asheville Airport notified. °
repairs,-installed.
°.`, 4 High vegetation'on MoW vegetation to allow for ;Periodic,mow ng of Area 1"as
. .
°. north slope better inspection of'surface necessary to complete inspections{of
. 3
9

Area 3
The Area 3 ash fill is an approximately 29-acre ash fill located west of the runway on the northern
portion of the airport property.Area 3 completed construction in 2016.The area is constructed (from
bottom to top)with a compacted soil subgrade,geosynthetic clay liner, and 60-mil geomembrane liner
with leachate collection pipes on top of the liner.The leachate collection system gravity drains to the
Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County(District).
t£¢MWE Eaaua umt
t (Ls r),gd o Ur V/12 W_Iowa
U01 SK M WPWD EWk)
Emma¢CEOMMITE t»R
IQ UDJt7lY431 Net 60 OEt A3k70 EWA)
'—E6 III HR TE7MI3D tW
l3 N 5EC 0 & 5U6GRA �
KW%SIM L EF E C3gfALG0F WU AC E twttfl Tn IlFlA ALT[47,110+
G`�w�riw�l�y�OF A�'i1LL(IIL RGiER EO L�ETh1I SHT.II O
Figure 3-Typical bottom liner system detail for Area 3
The cap for Area 3 is a flexible membrane with soil cover on top of it.The geomembrane in the cap
system is 40-mil textured HDPE.The cap thickness is six feet on top and two feet on the side slopes as
designed.The design details shown below are from the drawing set, "Asheville Regional Airport,
Engineered Fill-Area 3," issued for construction by Charah on March 15,2013.
V%Lx m1a sraus.m W mmmmtim
GPp,1Pf➢rv�o,s[fT4P ter+Kserrmz
snm�zervay.
x wa�ml ewmtt auertr.euw ra:on.;n
11RIG5[E V7AR Wt ffi 100 AT W
GflG4]�1[Q7AGRi.Gf4dgl p!qK M1K4
CWJS
s�iurmx�
—r-—Tin u+Tts sM ra Dolts:RAIL to
Ea AM r m w w saE s+s
JtT psi Ili
—ta n TaRM 1ref LM
L'PS
(4E I CO tW P-W)m.ArsM EW&)
Figure 4-Typical cap detail for Area 3
Area 3 Observations
1st Quarter Inspection-February 15,2018
The first quarterly inspection of Area 3 noted erosion in two locations.The leachate discharge was
recorded to be 3 gallon per minute(gpm).
10

2nd Quarter Inspection-April 5,2018
The second quarterly inspection in Area 3 did not note any structural changes to the fill area.Similar
conditions were noted as in the prior inspection. No repairs had been made to the areas noted in first
quarter. Leachate discharge was recorded as 1 gpm.
3nd Quarter Inspection—July 9,2018
The third quarterly inspection in Area 3 did not note any structural changes to the fill area.Similar
conditions were noted as in the prior inspection. No repairs had been made to the areas noted in first
quarter.Leachate discharge was recorded as 0 gpm.
4th Quarter Inspection-November 20,2018
The fourth quarterly inspection in Area 3 did not note any structural changes to the fill area.Similar
conditions were noted as in the prior inspection. Erosion was noted along the toe of slope near the road
(Photo 9). Erosion was noted in a drainage channel on top of the fill at the south end (Photo 10).
Leachate discharge was recorded as 3 gpm.
Photo 9-Area 3 erosion noted along the northern toe.(November 2M)
11

I
Photo 10-Area 3 erosion noted on top of fill at south end near storm drain.(November 2018)
Area 3 Corrective Actions
From the 2017 Annual Report,the following corrective actions were listed to be completed in 2018.
_ AREA 3 _
j Observation . Status-
1 °Erosion noted'at the-", 3 Fill.wifh compacted soil to , `Asheville Airport notified.,
o joe of fill;along-road,3 return to grade and�establish
rwhere road turns east: avegetation. '
This observation was addressed in the 2017 fourth quarter report. Photo 8 from the summary above,
shows the area. Duke Energy continued to include the area in its inspections, inspecting the cap for
erosion and integrity issues.
The Area 3 fill appeared to be in good condition throughout 2017 based on the quarterly inspections.
With the leachate flow ranging from 0-3 gpm, it appears the cap and liner system are performing as
designed.
12

r
Area 4 -
The Area 4 ash fill,substantially completed April 1, 2015, is located to the west of the Airport runway.
The 28-acre fill area was constructed in three different phases: Phase I, Phase IA,and Phase 2.Area 4 is
constructed(from bottom to top)with a compacted soil subgrade,geosynthetic clay liner,and 60-mil
geomembrane liner with leachate collection pipes on top of the liner.The leachate collection system
gravity drains to the District.
The cap system is similar to Area 3 noted above, but it was designed with a 30-mil geomembrane cap.
The soil thickness on.the cap is six feet on top and two feet on the side slopes as designed.
U e."U.'AsE ra aE a ,S%W"-,
PWAM AND SFFEFndCR KCLfAr.YE
SUSUM ox.
Z lat. ut�
iOUOM Wo"A,M7:ON"on THE MAL
MUM
GCS UBA 9gb4
..0 Wi RAN;SU,+WU
IML at JUL
�C4.IE%n3€II�t urtx-
�+.glo m�am ICiIA a-sum)ca.rrn[aexl
(�C60SURE eAP SECiIi)N
Figure 5-Typical cap detail for Area IV
Area 4 Observations
Based on observations from 2017 Quarterly Reports,Area 4 was in good condition to start 2018.
1st Quarter Inspection-February 23,2017
The first quarterly inspection of Area 4 noted minor erosion and sparse vegetation in the area.A fill
project had recently been completed in the area with some repairs being done. The leachate discharge
was recorded to be 1 gallons per minute (gpm).
®105°E(T) 0 35.428543°,=82.543396't16.4ft ♦2067ft
ayr°
Photo 11-Erosion rills noted along the west slope of Area 4.(February 2018)
13

NW N! NE E
70 300 330 0: 30 60 90
f 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I •.:",i.
_ - S
t" � /• I SAS 3 i i( R +.]
"q Ai �1.y}by es.�i�. r F l ;• r1'.�ty
tq
•Y
W NW I N NE
240 270 r.300 '3i,;J "0 -" 30 60
I � I I I 1 I l f I l� •_I_ I I I I I I I I
• Q • M• • /.
r,
F' nN
s 53 z
j'��"fir °9• { �'�Ix[�e d a•yz k J 7�"a*s j q. ry,.1 'r7aY '.r k! �F 1 `R•�.
•� r" r "� �f,hs�'' w ti'' a4sv r #F� !� �l�fi Pal ,�✓'� !tl }`�a 1-r,t
'y Cry �.„S�^#1'" y�': d Y Y ( �Tay �±� C�' .F� t a� S 3•� ��{}
yKi F a r 1, ;t` rr'a k rt w f a '• t F iitr r
�ig� ���M ;t~j �,� �f'• :*"I��Xa 4+ `i��l"`+! ¢ �#`��v'���1`*��°t i�
rf,:.1'az$" '�a.
tf
• ;�Y 4 { r 1 ;,y�1� �`.' a v" ram-� ��.��t',wz� � g}-�4 ,F
ry'„S+N �,7 �� S to r't•a��'" I.,�•.;4 ✓r r �,�4 � a` h� �, ��*,�'i F�.s
>�, >r, i"� }v,�>t; � / a �`e`•€a�lX�"r!f r� y' J i H �, t��. 9 y�l( �,
S1�• .• 34 ': '{.r� ,-ra reJ'��� #ls r° 4`�/�r�zS�z�����'��+ ff�����1 ��.

4th Quarter Inspection-November 20,2018
The fourth quarterly inspection in Area 4 did not note any structural changes to the fill area. Similar
conditions were noted as in the prior inspection. No new issues were noted. Leachate discharge was
recorded as 0 gpm.
Area 4 Corrective Actions
From the 2017 Annual Report,the following corrective actions for Area 4 were listed to be completed in
2018.
AREA IV
Recommerkdatioh
-- —�
1. Minor erosion and Fill with compacted soil to Asheville Airport notified.
sparse vegetation on return to grade and establish
western slope. vegetation.
2. Erosion rills and ruts. Fill with compacted soil to Asheville Airport notified.
return to grade and establish
vegetation.
The Area 4 fill appeared to be in fair condition throughout 2018 based on the quarterly inspections.
With the leachate flow maintaining 0 gpm readings in each quarter, it appears the cap and liner system
are performing as designed.The erosion and vegetation issues were not addressed adequately in 2018.
Final Observations
The structural fills Area 3 and Area 4 at the Asheville Regional Airport are in overall good condition as
documented in regular inspections by Duke Energy in 2018.The cap and liner systems appear to be
performing as designed as the outfall measurements ranged from 0-3 gpm throughout the year.
Ongoing inspections will ensure the fills continue functioning as designed and maintain the integrity of
the fill structures.
The ongoing issues for Areas III and 4include establishing and maintaining vegetation and continual
maintenance and repair of erosion. As of the final Quarterly Report, dated November 20, 2018,the
following table lists issues to be monitored and recommended actions going into 2019.The tables will
be shared with Asheville Airport maintenance. Duke Energy does not maintain the areas.
AREA 3
Observation
1. Erosion noted at the toe of fill along road rill with compacted soil to return to grade and
where road turns east. establish vegetation.
2. Erosion top of fill at south end near storm Fill with compacted soil to return to grade and
drain. establish vegetation.
15

AREA 4
Observation Ri-eommiendation
1. Minor erosion and sparse vegetation on Fill with compacted soil to return to grade and
western slope., establish vegetation.
2. Erosion rills and ruts. Fill with compacted soil to return to grade and
establish vegetation.
As stated earlier,the structural fill Area 1 is still under a Notice of Violation issued by NCDEQ on
November 17, 2017. Duke Energy continues to address concerns and respond to requests as addressed
in the DEQ letter"Review of 90-day Report Submittal and Required Interim Measures" dated April 30,
2018. Submittal of all requested data will occur by December 31, 2018 via separate cover.
Duke Energy has contracted Geosyntec Consultants,Synterra and McKim and Creed to provide
geotechnical study, perform stability analysis,groundwater and surface sampling and survey services to
respond to the issues noted by DEQ in the NOV and follow-up response. Duke Energy will submit all
requested data by December 31, 2018 via separate cover as directed by DEQ. Duke Energy will continue
to provide prompt response and updates to DEQ regarding the status of Area 1 fill.The NOV is not
applicable to Areas III and IV.
In addition to responding to the NOV and follow-up letter, DEQ has requested a final closure plan for
Area 1 be developed. Geosyntec is preparing a plan for Duke Energy that will be presented to the
Asheville Airport for their review and approval.The Closure Design will be submitted to DEQ in the first
quarter of 2019.
As of the final Quarterly Report, dated November 20, 2018,the following table lists issues to be
monitored and recommended actions going into 2018. Duke Energy anticipates addressing these issues
along with other items resulting from the NOV analysis.
AREA 1
- - Observation
1. Standing Water/Seep at toe of eastern fill. Continue to monitor.
2. Missing animal guard at low flow drain Install animal guard and clear vegetation,around
outlet pipe. the outlet.
3. Temporary stabilization measures Continue to monitor.
installed.
4. High vegetation on north slope. Mow vegetation to allow for better inspection of
surface.
16

Monitoring Wells
In addition to monitoring the surface of the fills,the condition of the monitoring wells were observed
quarterly per the permit. Conditions of the wells were recorded regarding access,casing, caps, labeling,
locks, paint and well pad.All wells as of the final quarterly report are in satisfactory condition with no
issues outstanding.The wells were sampled biannually per the permit in April and November.Additional
wells, MW-06—MW-09,were installed in Area 1 in August 2018.These wells were inspected visually in
the Q4 inspection.They will be added to the quarterly monitoring moving forward.
AREA 1
MW-01A. Satisfactory -
MW'-02A Satisfactory
M W-04A Satisfactory
MW-05 Satisfactory
MW-06 Satisfactory
MW-07 Satisfactory
MW-08 Satisfactory
MW709 Satisfactory
AREA 3
MW-1 Satisfactory
MW-2 Satisfactory
MW-3 Satisfactory
MW-4 I Satisfactory
IVIW-5 Satisfactory
MW-6 Satisfactory
MW-7 Satisfactory
AREA 4
MW-1A(R) Satisfactory
MW-2 Satisfactory
MW-3 Satisfactory .
MW-4 Satisfactory
MW-5 Satisfactory
MW-51) Satisfactory
MW-6 Satisfactory
MW-7 Satisfactory
MW-8 Satisfactory
MW-91 Satisfactory
17

CERTIFYING STATEMENT
This Report is presented to meet the requirements of Permit No.WQ0000020 issued to Duke Energy on
September 2, 2015.To the best of my knowledge,the information contained in this Report and
supporting documentation are accurate and complete.
I hereby certify that this Report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of North Carolina.
Signature: q��
Printed Name: Jr
Date: 1 Z 117 I F
.........v�.
License Number: • "
f`IV t �```�
18

Laverty, Brett
From: Pickett, Matt<[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 12:41 PM
To: Laverty, Brett
Cc: Toepfer, John R; Hill, Tim S.; Nordgren, Scott R.
Subject: [External]Airport Area 1 Inspection 12/12
� �xternaf email. Do not click links or open attachments winless verified.Send alf suspicious email as an attachme to
Brett,
I made it to the airport yesterday (12/12)to get the transducer data from the piezometers and took a quick
look at the north slope. As you can imagine there were several inches of snow covering the slope so the
inspection was very limited, BUT there didn't seem to be any movement of any kind.
Thanks,
Matt Pickett, P.E.
Lead Engineer- Duke Energy
Asheville CCP System Owner
200 CP&L Drive
Arden, NC 28704
AVL—828.650.7128
CELL—828.216.1398
i

Geosyntec Consultants of NC,PC
(� 1300 South Mint Street,Suite 300
Charlotte,NC 28203
PH 704.227.0840
consultmts www.geosyntee.com
13 December 2018
Mr. John R. Toepfer,P.E.
Lead Engineer
Duke Energy Progress,LLC.
410 S.Wilmington St./NC 15
Raleigh,North Carolina 27601
Subject: Letter Report—Corrective Action Plan Stability Analyses
Permit No.WQ0000020
Duke Energy Progress,LLC.
Coal Combustion Products(CCP)Structural Fill Projects
Buncombe County,North Carolina Asheville Regional Airport,Asheville,NC
Dear'Mr. Toepfer:
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC (Geosyntec) prepared this letter report (Report) in
response to Corrective Actions 8 and 9 required within North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality's (NCDEQ) Division of Water Resources (DWR) letter dated 30 April
2018. Geosyntec prepared a 90-day submittal on behalf of Duke Energy Progress, LLC (Duke
Energy) and in response to NOV-2017-PC-0616 dated 17 November 2017 which contained slope
stability analyses to: (i) evaluate a soil cap breach mechanism, (ii) compute factors of safety(FS),
and (iii)perform a sensitivity study for the Area 1 structural fill (Area 1)north slope at Asheville
Regional Airport (ARA). Geosyntec submitted the 90-day submittal on 29 December 2017, and
NCDEQ responded with additional Corrective Actions within the 30 April 2018 letter titled
"Review of 90-Day Report Submittal and Required Interim Measures". Corrective Actions 8 and
9 read:
8. Slope stability analyses— The DWR is requiring a geotechnical slope stability analysis of
the RCP corridor. The investigation should focus on, but is not limited to, the following areas:
seepage on the slope face of the RCP corridor; low-density back fill material within the
corridor; relationship between the overlying phreatic surface and the RCP; Factor of Safety
calculations; and sensitivity analysis using a range of pore water pressures and RCP friction
angles ((P).
9. Slope stability analyses— The DWR is requiring slope stability analyses along sections A,
B, and C to include a range of CCP friction angles, pore water pressures above (phreatic
surface) and below (piezometric) the GCL, and the potential for dynamic liquefaction in
response to earthquake loading.
Subsequently NCDEQ requested additional stability analyses or evaluations in a letter dated 25
June 2018, as summarized below:
GC6463/ARA_Area 1 CAP Stability Report
engineers I scientists I innovators

Mr. John R. Toepfer,P.E.
13 December 2018
Page 2
NCDEQ clarified Correction Action 8 to require that the stability evaluations include: (i)
evaluations for seismic loads through a pseudo-static slope stability analysis; ' (ii) assess
failure mechanisms related to piping or clogging of the RCP drainage/bedding aggregate;and
(iii) an assessment of the 60-in. diameter RCP stability and flow rate inclusive of the applied
rating system, contributing drainage areas, degradation, and potential repair plans.
NCDEQ clarified Corrective Action 9 to include a quantitative assessment of the
meteorological and groundwater conditions that would lead to a veneer failure of the cover
and expose CCR to rainfall.
Geosyntec performed and presented a seismic liquefaction susceptibility evaluation (i.e., the-
potential for dynamic liquefaction in response to earthquake loads)for Coal Combustion Residuals
(CCR)within the Area 1 structural fill with respect to areas of low or high overburden[Geosyntec,
2017]. In addition,the ARA Authority indicated to Duke Energy that the RCP structural integrity,
rating system, and potential repairs, if any, will be evaluated by the ARA Authority, and may be
submitted under separate cover.
This Report expands the slope stability analyses presented in the 90-day submittal [Geosyntec,
2017] and includes: (i) pseudo-static slope stability analysis for each analyzed cross section; (ii)
additional sensitivity analyses to assess potential variations in material shear strength parameters
and phreatic surface locations within Area 1; and (iii) the evaluation of a cross section within the
60-in. diameter reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) corridor, which bisects Area 1 cells by 'the
approximately 100-ft wide compacted soil corridor. The sensitivity analysis results are compared
to analysis results performed with parameters and conditions measured within the Area 1 structural
fill footprint. The slope stability analyses presented herein consider updated shear strength
parameters based on supplemental subsurface information obtained during an August 2018 field
investigation and laboratory testing program. In addition, a discussion of the meteorological
influence on veneer stability and potential failure mechanisms related to piping or clogging of the
RCP drainage aggregate is provided within this Report. The remainder of this Report presents the:
(i) methodology; (ii) input parameters; (iii) cases analyzed; (iv) analysis results, (v) additional
considerations and conclusions, and(vi)references.
METHODOLOGY
Slope stability analyses were performed using Spencer's method[Spencer, 1973],as implemented
in the computer program SLIDE®,version 6.020 [Rocscience, 2012]. Spencer's method satisfies
vertical and horizontal force and moment equilibrium and is considered more rigorous than other
methods such as the simplified Janbu method [Janbu, 1973] and Bishop's method [Bishop, 1955].
SLIDE® generates potential circular slip surfaces, calculates the factor of safety (FS) for each of
these surfaces, and identifies the most critical slip surface with the lowest calculated FS. Target
GC6463/ARA_Area 1 CAP Stability Report
engineers f scientists I innovators

Mr. John R. Toepfer,P.E.
13 December 2018
Page 3
FSs were selected pursuant to criteria presented in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §257
(referred to as the CCR Rule). Specifically, the target FSs of 1.5 and 1.0 are identified in
§257.73(e)(1) of the CCR Rule for slopes under long-term and seismic loading conditions,
respectively. The selected FSs are consistent with the recommendations set forth by the United
States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) [2003].
Pseudo static slope stability was evaluated based on the procedure below, consistent with Hynes-
Griffin and Franklin [1984]. The procedure can be summarized as:
1. Estimate the maximum horizontal earthquake acceleration for the potential critical slip
surfaces through the slope.
2. Compute the seismic horizontal force coefficient (kh) using the ratio of the critical
acceleration for which sliding begins (N) to the peak value of earthquake acceleration (A)
based on allowable displacement (u) in which the slope is considered stable (from Figure 1
of Hynes Griffin and Franklin [1984]). The peak ground acceleration (PGA) at ground
surface (PGAgro.d)was selected as the.peak earthquake acceleration,A.
3. Perform slope stability analysis and apply the seismic horizontal force coefficient to compute
a horizontal force (F = kb X W), for each slice based on slice weight (W) and evaluate the
computed FS. If the calculated FS meets or exceeds the target FS (i.e.,FS > 1.0), the slope
is considered to be stable under these conditions'.
The kh must be selected based on an assumed allowable displacement (u) that is acceptable. An
allowable displacement of 12 inches(30.48 centimeters)which is typical for earthen embankments
was selected for Area 1. Using the Hynes-Griffin and Franklin [1984] chart and assuming the
"Upper Bound" displacement, the ratio of N/A (or kh g/PGAg,,,.d) was conservatively selected
as 0.50,as shown on Figure 1. As such,kh was selected as 0.5 PGAground/g. Parameter g represents
the gravitational constant.
INPUT PARAMETERS
Subsurface Stratigraphy
The Area 1 subsurface stratigraphy was developed based on available as-built drawings [Vaughn
Engineering, 2010] and the field investigations conducted in November 2017 and August 2018.
Geosyntec's field investigations consisted of four monitoring well installations, twelve soil
borings, nine of which included Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs), and three hand auger (HA)
borings. Soil boring and monitoring well logs are included as Appendix A of this Report. Seven
soil borings and two HA borings were converted to standpipe piezometers that were routinely
monitored to evaluate phreatic conditions. The field investigation locations used for slope stability
calculations are shown on Figure 2. The field investigation results indicate that the subsurface
soils primarily comprise the following, from top to bottom:
GC6463/ARA_Area 1 CAP Stability Report
engineers I scientists I innovators

Mr. John R. Toepfer,P.E.
13 December 2018
Page 4
• Compacted Soil Cap: the soil cap consists primarily of fine to medium, brown/red, silty
sand and sandy silt(Unified Soil Classification System,USCS, SM/ML). The Compacted
Soil Cap is approximately 6-ft and 2-ft thick on the top deck and side slopes,respectively.
The Compacted Soil Cap was generally reported to be loose to stiff with N-values ranging
between 3 and 8 blows per foot(bpf).
• CCR: CCR within Area 1 consists predominantly of graylblack silt sized particles with
varying amounts of sand-sized particles (USCS: ML). The CCR layer thickness varies
between 20 ft to 40 ft within Area 1, as identified within as-built drawings [Vaughn
Engineering, 2010]. CCR were generally reported with N-values ranging between 0 and
20 bpf depending on the sample's relative moisture content;
• Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL): the GCL is a low permeability geosynthetic component
of the Area 1 base liner. Charah furnished the technical specifications.and product data
sheet for the liner and GCL,respectively,to Duke Energy on 25 July 2018,which indicate
that a ClayMax® 200R GCL, produced by CETCO Lining Technologies (CETCO), was
installed at Area 1. GCL was not modeled within these analyses as the CCR-GCL interface
sliding was evaluated and presented within the 90-day submittal [Geosyntec,2017].
• Residuum: Residuum consists primarily of fine to medium grained, brown, silty sand and
sandy clay (USCS: SM/CL). Residuum was generally reported to be loose to very dense
with N-values ranging from 4 to 50 bpf; and
• RCP Corridor Soil: The RCP Corridor Soil consists of layers of coarse to fine,brown/gray,
silty sand and clayey sand(USCS: SM/SC). The RCP Corridor Soil was generally reported
to be loose to medium dense with N-values less than 11 bpf. As-built drawings [Vaughn
Engineering,2010] indicate that soil backfill was compacted on the GCL above and within
50 feet of the 60-in. diameter RCP.
Cross Sections
Geosyntec selected four critical cross-sections(Cross Sections A through D)for analysis,as shown
on Figure 2. Cross Section A traverses the Area 1 west fill while Cross Sections B and C traverse
the east fill. Each cross section geometry was developed based on available survey data, slope pin
elevations field observations, and available as-built drawings. Cross Section B was selected to be
perpendicular to the Area 1 soil cap breach observed in September 2017; while the location of
Cross Section C was based on the steepest portion of the northern slope. Cross Section D is cut
along the RCP corridor as requested by NCDEQ in Corrective Action 8 and contains shallower
exterior grades as the RCP corridor provides an access road to the base of the slope. Cross Section
A through D geometries are shown on Figures 3 through 6, respectively.
GC6463/ARA_Area 1 CAP Stability Report
engineers [ scientists 1 innovators

Mr. John R. Toepfer,P.E.
13 December 2018
Page 5
Phreatic Surface
Nine piezometers were installed as part of the November 2017 and August 2018 field
investigations. Depth to water level measurements were collected by Geosyntec and Duke Energy
periodically within each piezometer (Table 1). The water level measurements were used to
develop the phreatic surface for each cross section evaluated as part of the analyses presented
herein. Wet areas were identified, flagged, and surveyed during the field investigations and used
to estimate the presence of a seepage face where applicable.
Soil boring and water level data from PZ-2 and PZ-3D, screened within the Residuum, indicate
that water elevation at these locations is above the GCL base liner for Area 1, but not to the
elevations indicated by piezometers screened within CCR. For instance, the water elevation
recorded in PZ-3, screened within CCR, is typically between two to three feet higher than PZ-3D.
This observation suggests that the underlying groundwater surface is separated from the phreatic
surface within the CCR. However, a single phreatic surface was modeled within the evaluated
cross sections and the highest phreatic condition for a given cross section identified within CCR
above GCL was conservatively selected. The phreatic surface assumption was considered
conservative as soil shear strength is dependent on the effective overburden force(i.e., soil weight
minus water pressure within soil pores); therefore, a higher phreatic surface provides a scenario
where lower shear strengths are computed for material layers in each cross section.
The weight of soil, CCR and/or porewater is significantly larger than measured groundwater uplift
pressures (i.e., 589 psf at PZ-3D against the GCL (e.g., 34.5 ft of CCR/soil cap at PZ-3D yields
3,278 psf,which is greater than the estimated 589 psf uplift pressure). As such,groundwater uplift
pressures were considered negligible relative the overburden forces and not modeled within the
phreatic surface evaluation.
Shear Strength Parameters
Area 1 construction was completed in 2010 .and consists of compacted CCR overlain by a
Compacted Soil Cap. As such, excess pore pressures potentially developed during construction
are expected to have dissipated and subsurface materials are expected to exhibit drained behavior.
Long-term, drained strength parameters (i.e., effective stress parameters) were selected for
subsurface materials based on available in-situ tests, where applicable, or laboratory test results.
SPTs were conducted at select intervals and the SPT N-values were corrected for hammer
efficiency, borehole diameter, sampler liner, rod length, and overburden stress (i.e. (Nl)60)• The
drained friction angle of coarse-grained materials can be estimated from (Nl)6o by the equation
developed by Hatanaka and Uchida [1996] as follows:
V = VISA x (N1)60 + 20° Equation 1
GC6463/ARA_Area 1 CAP Stability Report
engineers ( scientists 1 innovators

Mr. John R. Toepfer,P.E.
13 December 2018
Page 6
where:
0': drained friction angle, degrees; and
(Ni)60: corrected SPT N-value,blows.
Figure 7 presents a plot of estimated drained friction angle versus elevation. The selected strength
parameters are discussed below and summarized in Table 2.
The Electric Power Research Institute(EPRI)publication"Geotechnical Properties of Fly Ash and
Potential for Static Liquefaction" [2012] indicates that a.thin-wall tube sampler with sharp cutting
shoe (e.g., Shelby tube sampler) be used to collect samples to assess the in-situ density of CCR.
As such, SPTs in CCR do not provide a meaningful assessment of in-situ density and were not
utilized to assess the in-situ effective shear strength. Laboratory test results on undisturbed
samples of CCR and RCP soil corridor collected using Shelby tubes were utilized to select the
drained shear strength parameters used in these analyses.
Compacted Soil Cap
The drained friction angle for the Compacted Soil Cap was estimated based on the SPT results.
However, the Hatanaka and Uchida [1996] correlation to estimate friction angle based on SPT
results tends to overpredict friction angle at shallow depths since the overburden correction factor
(CN) is sensitive to low overburden stresses. As such, a more conservative drained friction angle
of 30 degrees without cohesion was selected, consistent with published literature'values for silty
sands (USCS: SM) [Day, 2012;Holtz and Kovacs, 1981].
CCR
Geosyntec subcontracted Excel Geotechnical Testing, Inc. (EGT) of Roswell, Georgia to perform
consolidated-undrained (CU) triaxial tests on select CCR and RCP samples in accordance with
American Society on Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 4767. CCR drained strength parameters
were estimated from interpretation of CU test result(Appendix B). Laboratory CU test results for
samples collected from Area 1 and other Duke Energy CCR basins by Geosyntec are presented in
Figure 8. A drained friction angle of 34 degrees without cohesion was selected for these analyses
based on the compiled data.
Residuum
The drained friction angle for the Compacted Soil Cap was estimated based on the SPT results
presented in Figure 7. A drained friction angle of up to 40 degrees was computed. However, the
Residuum is classified as silty sand and sandy clay (USCS: SWCL) and the two samples tested
contained 28.4 percent and 32.9 percent fines and was found to be slightly micaceous. The drained
GC6463/ARA_Area 1 CAP Stability Report
engineers 1 scientists 1 innovators

Mr. John R. Toepfer, P.E.
13 December 2018
Page 7
friction angle was reduced by five degrees as recommended by Geotechnical Engineering Circular
No. 5 [FHWA, 2002] and was selected as 35 degrees without cohesion for analysis.
RCP Corridor Soil
The drained friction angle for the RCP Corridor Soil was estimated from SPTs by Hatanaka and
Uchida [1996] as 34 degrees. In addition, undisturbed RCP Corridor Soil samples were tested in
the laboratory and drained parameters were estimated from CU tests presented in Appendix B. As
shown on Figure 9, a drained friction angle of 39 degrees without cohesion was computed.
However, a drained friction angle of 34 degrees was conservatively selected for this analysis.
Seismic Criteria
The maximum horizontal acceleration in lithified earth was selected to be consistent with 40 CFR
§257.53, which is defines the peak ground motion or PGA as the acceleration that contains a two
percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. The PGA at the top of"Firm Rock" or `B/C"
boundary was obtained by using the United States Geological Survey(USGS) deaggregation tool
[USGS, 2018]; the results for ARA are presented in Appendix C. The PGA at the "Firm Rock"
(i.e., shear wave velocity of 2,500 feet per second (ft/s) or greater) below Area 1 (PGAB/C) is
estimated to be 0.17g. Local site effects (e.g., amplification) should be considered to calculate a
PGA at the ground surface (PGAgro„nd). The site class was estimated Class E using available SPT
N-values following the procedure presented in American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7
[ASCE, 2010]. Subsequently, PGAgrouna was calculated as 0.33g after multiplication PGAB/c by
the coefficient, 1.94,that corresponds to Site Class E to account for local site effects.
As described previously, Hynes-Griffin and Franklin [1984] identifies that kb be selected as half
of PGAgrouna/g if 12 inches (30.48 cm) of displacement is acceptable. As such,kh was computed
as 0.17.
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Geosyntec bounded the range of possible friction angles for the CCR and RCP Corridor Soil and
the range of potential phreatic surface elevations to perform a sensitivity analysis of Area 1
conditions as required by NCDEQ. The drained shear strength parameters described in previous
section were selected based on collected data and evaluated for comparison within the sensitivity
study presented herein. The following sections describe the sensitivity analysis and the range of
evaluated parameters.
CCR Shear Streneth
Published shear strength results for CCR indicate a range of drained friction angles between 22
and 47 [EPRI,2012],which were selected as lower and upper bounds for these sensitivity analyses.
GC6463/ARA_Area 1 CAP Stability Report
engineers f scientists ) innovators

Mr. John R. Toepfer,P.E.
13 December 2018
Page 8
RCP Corridor Soil Shear Strength
Drained friction angles of loose and dense cohesionless soils range between 30 and 40 degrees
[FHWA, 2002]. The RCP Corridor Soil was reported as loose to medium dense coarse silty sand
and clayey sand. Drained friction angle as low as 20 degrees was calculated based on a single,
isolated SPT as shown on Figure 7. As such, friction angles of 20 and 40 degrees were selected
as the lower and upper bounds for the sensitivity analysis of RCP Corridor Soil shear strength
properties.
Phreatic Surface
The lower and upper phreatic surface elevations with seepage faces were selected based on water
elevations above GCL and toe berm, respectively. The lower phreatic surface was assumed to be
1.5-ft above the GCL. The higher phreatic surface was assumed to-be 20 feet above the crest of
toe berm and assumed to develop a seepage face along the exterior slope.
CASES ANALYZED
Four cases were analyzed for slope stability at Cross Sections A through D under the following
conditions:
• Case I: existing phreatic surface with lower bound shear strength parameters of CCR or
RCP Corridor Soil;
• Case II: existing phreatic surface with upper bound shear strength parameters of CCR or
RCP Corridor Soil;
• Case III: lower phreatic surface with measured shear strength parameters of CCR or RCP
Corridor Soil; and
• Case IV: higher phreatic surface with measured shear strength parameters of CCR or RCP
Corridor Soil.
In addition to the described cases, existing conditions and pseudo-static seismic slope stability
analyses were performed under existing phreatic surface and measured shear strength parameters
for CCR or RCP corridor for each cross section. The phreatic surface developed for existing
conditions within this Report is slightly higher than the surfaces presented within the 90-day
submittal based on additional piezometer water level measurements collected after December
2017.
ANALYSIS RESULTS
The selected cross sections were evaluated for static, long term slope stability and pseudo-static
seismic slope stability using the methodology and parameters outlined within this Report. Slope
GC6463/ARA_Area 1 CAP Stability Report
engineers I scientists I innovators

Mr. John R. Toepfer,P.E.
13 December 2018
Page 9
stability analysis results generated from SLIDE® are shown in Appendices D through G for each
cross section and evaluated case and are summarized in Table 3..
The results can be summarized as follows:
• Calculated FSs for Cross Sections A,B,and C under Case II(existing phreatic surface with
upper bound shear strength parameters), Case III (lower phreatic surface with measured
shear strength), existing conditions, and pseudo-static conditions meet the target FS.
• Calculated FSs for Cross Sections A,B,and C under Case I(existing phreatic surface with
lower bound shear strength) and Case IV (high phreatic surface with measured shear
strength) are below the target FS.
• Cross Section D was calculated to meet\the target FSs for static and pseudo-static
conditions under all cases analyzed..
• Calculated FSs for the existing conditions for each cross section were found to exceed the
target FS for global slip surfaces.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Rainfall Induced Slide Mechanism
Geosyntec evaluated the FSs for veneer slope stability for the northern Area 1 slope as a part of
the 90-day submittal to NCDEQ [Geosyntec, 2017]. The computed FSs predicted a veneer slide
or slump (FS < 1.0)when a seepage face develops within the side slopes of the soil cap. As such,
NCDEQ requested a quantitative model to assess the meteorological and hydrologic conditions
that predict a rapid,veneer failure of the existing soil cap.
Geosyntec considered the application of several approaches ,to potentially predict the
meteorological conditions that might induce future veneer slides within the soil cap. However,
uncertainties with respect to Area 1 conditions (i.e., seepage rate, preferential flow paths,
constructed liner geometry) prevent the development of an accurate model to assess the site
response with respect to meteorological conditions. However, automated transducers installed
within select piezometers in Area 1 were used to collect data, presented in the Quarterly Slope
Monitoring Report [Geosyntec 2018], that provide an indication of phreatic surface behavior
following a rain event. Furthermore, the slope stability analyses provided within the 90-day
submittal [Geosyntec, 2017] include a sensitivity,analysis to evaluate stability based on varying
phreatic conditions within the fill.
Review of the pressure transducer data presented in the Quarterly Slope Monitoring Report
[Geosyntec 2018] indicates the phreatic surface response measured by In-Situ Troll 500
transducers installed within select piezometers (PZ-2,.PZ-2S, PZ-3, and PZ-3D) compared to
hourly rainfall measurements(Gauge ID: KAVL)was negligible during the data collection period
GC6463/ARA_Area 1 CAP Stability Report
engineers E scientists 1 innovators

Mr. John R. Toepfer, P.E.
13 December 2018
Page 10
(August 2018 —October 2018). Specifically, the change in elevation within the piezometers was
consistent with the magnitude of the rainfall measurement(e.g., 1 in.precipitation resulted in 1 in.
change in elevation). Furthermore,the response time was also consistent with the rain event. For
example, on 15 and 16 September 2018, the rainfall gauge (ID: KAVL)measured approximately
1.21 in. of rainfall within an approximately 24-hr timeframe. The response within the four
piezometers with automated data collection indicated an average increase in elevation equal to
1.19 in., within the same 24-hr period. More so, the water elevation within the piezometers
returned to normal within 20 hr. following the rainfall event.
Veneer slides or slumps, dependent on slope geometry and conditions, are typically not rapid,
abrupt, or result in global instability, and are mitigated during routine maintenance activities. If
left unaddressed,veneer slides may progressively worsen slope conditions.
A permanent cap design is under development and will be designed such that the soil component
of the permanent cap drains to reduce water accumulation and veneer slides along the
geomembrane.
RCP Corridor Drainage
Within the 25 June 2018 letter, NCDEQ DWR provided an additional comment with respect to
Corrective Action 8,which reads:
"The stability analysis of the RCP corridor should identify and address the potential failure
modes of the RCP corridor to include, but not limited to:piping within backf-ill/drainage
aggregate;pore water pressures above and beneath the GCL, clogging of the drainage
aggregate leading to increased pore water pressures beneath the GCL;and seismic loads. "
.The updated global slope stability sensitivity analyses addressed a majority of the comment;
however, discussion of piping and/or clogging of the RCP drainage aggregate situated below the
GCL is discussed within this subsection.
The detail provided within the As-Built Drawings [Vaughn Engineering, 2010] indicates that the
60-in.diameter RCP was bedded approximately to the RCP spring line with"gravel pipe bedding".
Subsequently,two feet of compacted soil was placed above the gravel pipe bedding and the top of
RCP and a GCL was placed over the entire area before the fill was constructed. Various
communications between Charah, Inc. (Charah), ARA Authority, and NCDEQ stakeholders
suggest that aggregate drains were installed on 100-ft intervals to convey the historical stream
toward the RCP corridor drainage aggregate. However, erosion and sediment control inspection
notes indicated that Charah,the ARA Authority's contractor, installed two, 2-ft wide gravel (No.
57 stone) trenches to connect the historical stream to the RCP corridor gravel bedding. Due to
excessive flow that eroded the RCP gravel bedding stone, these trenches were removed, and the
historical drainage channel was filled with No. 57 stone [Altamont Environmental Inc.,2009a]. A
GC6463/ARA_Area 1 CAP Stability Report
engineers I scientists I innovators

Mr. John R. Toepfer,P.E.
13 December 2018
Page 11
subsequent inspection noted that the ARA Authority,their consultant, and Charah agreed to install
an aggregate drain to the RCP gravel bedding at the northern RCP outfall [Altamont
Environmental Inc., 2009b]. The gravel drain geometry and location are not delineated or
confirmed on the as-built drawings [Vaughn Engineering, 2010].
As-built drawings do not depict an aggregate filter media or geotextile separator around the RCP
bedding aggregate or provide a detail for other aggregate drains. As such, migration of subgrade
and compacted fill soils below the GCL into the drainage aggregate, if present, or bedding gravel
is possible and likely. Migrated soil may clog the drainage aggregate, which would limit flow
along the bedding aggregate and potentially allow the phreatic surface below the GCL to become
elevated. Geosyntec did not attempt to sample the RCP corridor bedding aggregate to avoid
damage to the GCL at this location and the RCP during investigation activities. As such,
Geosyntec did not visually observe clogging to the drainage or bedding aggregate materials.
Dependent on the gradient and/or flow rates, piping.of the subgrade or compacted fill soils into
the bedding aggregate may develop voids near the RCP. Surface water sampling location SW 10-
Al, identified as a groundwater seep and sampled by NCDEQ, is situated approximately on the
historical stream channel at the base of the west cell and suggests that the drainage aggregate serves
as a preferential flow path for the historical stream channel. Geosyntec and other consultants did
not identify piping at SW10-A1 during routine inspections. Conditions at the RCP outlet prevent
inspection of the drainage aggregate, as such, evidence of piping_ is not present or not observable
at this location.
Conclusions
This Report responds to NCDEQ's Corrective Actions 8 and 9 and subsequent clarifications
provided within 25 June 2018 correspondence and demonstrates that target FSs for global, deep
seated slip surfaces are maintained for existing and seismic conditions for the northern Area 1
slopes. The Report also provides a sensitivity analysis to compute the FSs for the upper and lower
bounds of drained friction angles and phreatic surfaces anticipated within Area 1.
Geosyntec understands that the ARA Authority is currently evaluating the structural stability of
the 60-in. diameter RCP and may provide the structural stability evaluation of the pipe to NCDEQ
under separate cover.
Sincerely,
resD.McNash,P.E.(Nc)
Project Engineer
GC6463/ARA_Area 1 CAP Stability Report
engineers f scientists 1 innovators

Mr. John R. Toepfer,R.E.
13 December 2018
Page 12
REFERENCES
Altamont Environmental, Inc. (2009a). "Site Visit Report", Asheville Regional Airport, dated 5
February 2009.
Altamont Environmental, Inc. (2009b). "Site Visit Report", Asheville Regional Airport, dated 17
February 2009.
ASCE(2010). "Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,"ASCE/SEI Standard
7-10.
Bishop,A. (1955),"The Use of the Slip Circle in the Stability Analysis of Slopes,"Geotechnique,
Volume 5,No. 1, Jan 1955,pp. 7-17.
Day,R.W. (2012), Geotechnical Engineer's Portable Handbook,New York: McGraw Hill,2012.
EPRI (2012), "Geotechnical Properties of Fly Ash and Potential for Static Liquefaction: Volume
1 —Summary and Conclusions",Palo Alto, California,December 2012.
FHWA (2002), "Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5, Evaluation of Soil and Rock
Properties",April 2002.
Geosyntec (2017). `Engineering Analysis Report Asheville Regional Airport—Area 1 Structural
Fill Asheville,North Carolina."December 2017.
Geosyntec (2018). "Quarterly Slope Monitoring Report — 3rd (Quarter (Q3) 2019 — Asheville
Regional Airport—Area 1 Structural Fill", October 2018.
Hatanaka, M. and A. Uchida (1996), 'Empirical Correlation between Penetration Resistance and
Internal Friction Angle of Sandy Soils," Soils and Foundations,Vol. 36,No. 4,pp. 1-9.
Holtz,R.D.,and Kovacs,W.D. (1981),An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering,New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, 1981.
Hynes-Griffin, M. and Franklin, A. (1984), "Rationalizing the Seismic Coefficient Method",
Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg,
Mississippi,Miscellaneous Paper GL-84-14, Jul 1984.
Janbu, N. (1973), "Slope Stability Computations," Embankment Dam Engineering, Casagrande
Memorial Volume, R. C. Hirschfield and S. J. Poulos, Eds., John Wiley,New York, 1973,
pp. 47-86.
GC6463/ARA_Area 1 CAP Stability Report
engineers I scientists 1 innovators

Mr. John R. Toepfer,P.E.
13 December 2018
Page 13
Rocscience (2012). SLIDE v6.0. Rocscience Inc., Toronto, Ontario.
Spencer,E., (1973). "Thrust line criterion in embankment stability analysis.", Geotechnique,Vol.
23,pp. 85-100.
United States Army Corp.of Engineers(2003),"Engineering and Design: Slope Stability Engineer
Manual",Manual No. 1110-2-1902, 31 October 2063.
USGS (2018). "Unified Hazard Tool, Dynamic: Conterminous U.S. 2014 Edition."
https:Hearthquake.us-s.gov/hazards/interactive/.
Vaughn Engineering (2010), "Charah — Asheville Regional Airport Coal Combustion Product
Engineered Fill, March 2010 Update, "As Built" Surface Development as of December 29,
2009", 8 March 2010.
GC6463/ARA_Area 1 CAP Stability Report
engineers [ scientists 1 innovators

TABLES

Table 1. Summary of Water Level Measurements
Piezometer ID PZ-I PZ-2 PZ-2S PZ-3 PZ-3D PZ-4 PZ-5 PZ-6 PZ-7
Top of Casing
Elevation 2142.73 2147.89 2147.60 2142.78 2142.34 2148.52 2119.60 2121.47 2139.95
ft NAVD88
Date Elevation Elevation Elevation Elevation Elevation Elevation Elevation Elevation Elevation
ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft
11/20/17 2113.03 2112.29 - 2115.50 - 2123.93 2113.30 2115.40 -
`?.
: -� '`_`_'. ",
r.= �.«.. , ✓e i�- `° aEi kt-> - .,.
am", 2 1 _ 21 211 44,,. 2t
?�W ^ =tttmf �:• _....�a_.. r�:'`..�� _ .�.a.. *�, ��. ,��" k�'��°�:
11/22/17 2113.21 2113.49 - 2115.34 - 2124.18 2113.37 2114.93 -
..,,'Y, u' (�r':�,�,'E`e ,`r��""a,".'s;:; �o yi,
o@,';f u ,4. 'a
,yr a:. +��y�p uu
1v,7." 1k23,94 .�,a,d
'�->s� a �G ��t8�;,� vt a,-�.x ,xa• �' �".,w^„ �,,r r�^ r,,�e, t''>�a, ^ w..r.�. o„ <:-,..-,� , -�. w -`�;.. ,�_,.. ." ..k_ .t . "�' „ � -. " a ''*`^-,• �e��'„�F.1,!„"`
12/12/17 2113.24 2113.52 - 2115.18 - 2124.21 2.114.01 2114.95 -
„'""', '..rm.:, �s 4�wl]A�7 s a�4 8"";P,':~r.s1•,' -z=."", „.f��' xr 3 �,r, :
.:rlrir.t
01/22/18 2113.15 2113.41 - 2115.40 - 2124.21 2113.64 2115.72 -
, �M .r.:rd '.;ro^
r:. J-sr m ".'.i 37,rc c ` '® 'r;�?�i41 w�°,-"�"a''" ,4::w ,i7.1a :a"s`
,:a:-" F 7 :,. "."„_::. x. , ✓„,rani it-cam^ �.; w::s;^-rr-s vt; _ ` , = „
. . (} � �&,� ���Syi�
n�
03/12/18 2114.13 2114.21 - 2116.52 - 2126.01 2114.39 2116.93 -
Pw
n„
y-F i.s r_ ^t
Q SOS t8: v. 3 21'1171 U
05/02/18 2114.25 2114.01 - 2116.03 - 2126.21 2113.67 2115.09 -
-: r= .r,ar "" Fr,,.:
:.. ,E ,�� -s ,^. :w .J,'r , ., rr
'(¢ ,
l 4ei.A r ,,:•� ' P`
�.� �� rw �.T�.,
06/12/18 2114.58 2114.76 - 2117.13 - 2126.70 2114.19 2115.82 -
,
r." `a. �r' - a i' e .:J ` ", , 'C- ea-7 -s try f §
#l?1# t 8F¢ ,,Z 4 .40 p 1�1 __y 1 3 2112 2
r
, '�'`+`R,�.w,�,. �..9:,aax:� L:
08/06/18 2116.25 2114.39 - 2116.30 - 2126.18 2114.56 2116.22 -
'^ ' ;tri,
„ a i 'asm.Wa":�.-�'-$ 'mx . a "' .a -""- , '
"
NPU
09/10/18 2114.55 2114.54 2118.11 2116.19 2113.43 2126.31 2113.17 2114.11 -
Notes:
[1] Elevations are referred to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988(NAVD88).
[2] Initial round of measurements collected on 20 November 2017 are pre-well development. Subsequent water level measurements are post well-
development.

Table 2. Summary of Strength Parameters
Material Unit WeightM Cohesion Friction Angle
(lb/ft) (psf) (degrees)[21
Compacted Soil Cap 110 0 30
CCR 95 0 34
Residuum 120. 0 35
RCP Corridor Soil 115 0 34
Notes:
[1] Unit weights were estimated based on experience with similar materials. Except for CCR which is based
on testing of CCR samples collected from other sites.
[2] Friction angles were selected based SPT results for Compacted Soil Cap,Residuum and RCP Corridor Soil.
Friction angle of CCR was selected based on CU test results.

Table 3. Summary of Calculated Factors of Safety
Calculated Factor of Safety
Sensitivity Analysis Measured Conditions.
Cross Existing Pseudo-
Section Case I Case II Case III Case IV Conditions Static
A 1.2 2.4 1.7 0.8 1.8 1.1
(Figure D-1) (Figure D-2) (Figure D-3) (Figure D-4) (Figure D-5) (Figure D-6)
B 1.1 1.8 2.2 1.1 1.7 1.0
(Figure E-1) (Figure E-2) (Figure E-3) (Figure E-4) (Figure E-5) (Figure E-6)
C 1.1 2.1 1.8 0.8 1.6 1.0
(Figure F-1) (Figure F-2) (Figure F-3) (Figure F-4) (Figure F-5) (Figure F-6)
D 1.5 3.0 3.2 1.5 2.8 1.3
(Figure G-1) (Figure G-2) (Figure G-3) (Figure G-4) (Figure G-5) (Figure G-6)
Notes:
[1] Case I: existing phreatic surface with lower bound shear strength;Case II:existing phreatic surface with
upper bound shear strength;Case III:lower phreatic surface with measured shear strength; and Case IV:
higher phreatic surface with measured shear strength.
[2] Calculated FS for global stability presented herein corresponds to a deep-seated slip surface passing
through the top deck. Surficial sloughing is typically remedied with routine maintenance.

1000
�s
x
..�. 1 Q0
10
0.01 0.1 1.0
N/A
Figure 1. N/A Estimation based on Permeant Displacement(u) [Hynes-Griffin and
Franklin,19841

l '
, r
i`
5 -r
P
�r
e
1
rt
a i -
r
,)
,r
Legend , `?
ill Hand Auger/Piezometer
Inclinometer '�� �` ° � �� s"' � • �'
SPT/Piezometer
Q SPT
Approximate Cross Section Locations
CCR Boundary
® Temporary Stabilization Measure
0 Parcel Boundary
Compliance Boundary
® Review Boundary
Area 1 Stormwater Network i ~`� -- - .r `Y zoo 100 0 200 400 Feet
Notes:
1.Service Layer Credits: Source:Esri,DigitalGlobe,GeoEye, % Soil Boring and Cross Section Location Map
Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS,USDA,USGS, Slope Stability Analysis
AeroGRID,IGN,and the GIS User Community.
2. Parcel boundaries obtained from Buncombe County GIS ``
website on 20 December 2017. �� � + Asheville Regional Airport
3.Compliance and Review Boundaries obtained from shapefiles1;t e � �/� _ ' �s Asheville,North Carolina
provided by SynTerra.on 16 July 2018. ^,, �: � �•- -
4. SPT locations are approximate and were located by handheld
GPS. GeOS�/IlteC� ��DUKE Figure
5. INC and PZ locations were surveyed by McKim&Creed on 29 " t.+ , 1 t * t ENERGY®
consultants
November 2017 and 10 September 2018.
6.Limits of CCR scaled from historical documents,should be
considered approximate,and should be field verified. a'' _ y yA CHARLOTTE,NC OCTOBER 2018

O
O
N
Bottom as structural fill
Material Name Color based on available borings
and Charah"As Built"
Residuum 0 12129109
0
Compacted Soil Cap 0 SPT 11PZ-1
GCL/CCR Interface Water level measured at approximately
elevation 2116.3 ft NAVD88 Geometry beyond survey limit
Compacted CCR ❑ on OS/06H8 ,based on slope pin elevations,visual
Limit of 10/04/17 Approximately 2'thick observations made in the field,and
GCL along base Approxiinately6'thici McKim and Creed Su compacted soil cap approximate measurements
of structural fill compacted soil cap from AVCON"Area 1 and Area 4
Improvements,Sheet C-06"March 2016.
N M7
—° g i. M6 M5 Assumed toe berm geometry
W�� `` F'" - _ - __. M4 2H:1V interior slooe
_. .w,
M3 Top of wet area based on field observation
and wet area(close to K1 and L1)
M2 Creed
- — .
- M1 surveyed by McKim and
11129117
0 50 160 150 260 250 360 350 400 450
Figure 3. Cross Section A Geometry

0
0
cn
N
Material Name Color
N Residuum 0 SPT31PZ3 PZ-31)
N
N Compacted Soil Cap ❑.
Water level measured at approximately Water level measured at approximately
GCL/CCR Interface E:] 2116.5 ft NAVD88 on 03112118 2113.6 ft NAVD88 on 08/22/18
Compacted CCR PZ-2S
(offset) HA-21PZ-5 Top of wet area(adjacent to pin H3)
SPT 21PZ-2 surveyed by McKim and Creed
N (offset) Water level measured at approximately GCL along base Water level measured at 11@9117
2118.1 ft NAVD88 on 09/10/18 approximately
Water level measured at approx atety of structural fill Limit of 10104/17 2114.9 ft NAVD88 `
2114.8 ft NAV088 on 06112/18 Approximately 6'thick on 02/15/18 /McKim and Creed Survey
compacted soil cap Assumed toe berm geometry
Approximately 2' ick 2H:1V interior slope
INC-1 D8 compacted soil cap
Geometry beyond survey limit
D6
a a mew D7
,. _,...
. W i R � �-- �_.:..:. _,_ DS based on approximate measurements
Y D from Charah"As Builf'.12/29109
D2
o
zq
0 50 160 150 260 250 300 350 460 450 500 550
Figure 4. Cross Section B Geometry

g MaterlaiMame Color
N
Residuum Q
Compacted Soil Cap 0 SPT-4/PZ-4 HA31PZ-6
N GCL/CCR Interface Water level measured at approximately Water level measured at approximately
ry Compacted CCR Q elevation 2126.7 ft NAVD88 elevation 2117.1 ft NAV088
(offset) on 06/12/18 on 02/15118
SPT 21PZ-2 Water level measured at approximately
(offset) 2118.7 ft NAVD88 on 09/10/18 GCL along base Approximately 2'thick Top of wet area
of structural fill compacted soil cap
N surveyed by McKim and Creed
Water level measui d at approximately Approximately 6'thick 11129/17
2114.8 ft NAVD88 n 06112/18 compacted soil cap Assumed toe berm geometry Limit of 10/04/17
21-11•11V interior slope McKim and Creed Survey
g ® J7 J �Ge.metry beyond survey limit
4 based on visual observations
5
04/17
J
,
0
V
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Figure 5. Cross Section C Geometry

o Material,Name Color
v
Residuum ❑ PZ-2S
(offset) Approximate location of wet area
Compacted Soil Cap ❑ identified by NCDEQ,Geosyntec,
Water level measured at approximately and SynTerra as shown on the
RCP Corridor Soil
❑ 10104/17 McKim and Creed
SPT 21PZ-2 2118.7 ft NAVD88 on 09f10118 survey.
GCL/CCR Interface ❑ (offset)
SPT-6(PZ 7
Concrete Headwall �
Water level measured at ap oximately (offset) Limit of 10104/17
2114.8 ft NAVD88 on O6N2H McKim and Creed Survey
Water level measured at approximately
2117.6 ft NAVD88 on 08122/18 Top of headwall at approximately elevation
Approximately 6'thick 2098.10 ft NAVD88
compacted soil cap 5-ft diameter RCP
0
(not modelled) Assumed 2-ft thick concrete headwall
Approximately 2'thick
PP ly Bottom of concrete at approximately elevation
compacted soil cap 2090.76 ft NAV086(could not get invert of pipe)
�1
400 560 660 760 800 960 1000 1100 1200 1300
Figure 6. Cross Section D Geometry

2150 .�—
O Soil Cap
e Residur.un 1
1
O RCP Corridor Soil OI 1 I
I 1
---SoilCap-Selected I 1 �'Soilcep 30°
��—
-Residurun-Selected 10 OI
I
----RCP Corridor Soil-Selected I
1 �
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
pl
1
,AA 1
W�RCPC—id.,soa—34o 1
1 q>� 1
� 1
W ® ( 1
I I
I i !
I I
� 1 e
®_ --
1
1
1 �
1
I e i
1
1
2110
e I
2100
�x°:idaun,=35° I
e t
� 4
2090
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Effective Friction Angle,�'(°)
Figure 7. Estimated Drained Friction Angle versus Elevation
Notes:
[1] NAVD88: North American Vertical Datum of 1988.
[2] Estimation of drained friction angle by Hatanaka&Uchida[1996]is typically applied to sandy soils. The
applicability of SPT based relationships for CCR is limited. As such,the effective friction angle for CCR
based on the SPT results was not included within Figure 7.

80
_1-_1_4_�
I ,-'--'- i- -I_ 1_I_L_ I I I I I I _II I,_ _I_I__I_!_ 1 t 1
1 ❑® ARA 1 I I t I , I i i- -�-t --1-� I i t 1 I I -I i-',-I-
^L. r-r-l-I -I--i-'1^r^ -I-I r-r--I r-r-I--"r"r'7-I -r-1--1-f-
_ J_ _L_I_J_i_ ...(_.J_L_L-._J_L_L_I_ _L_L_i_J_ -L J-J_L_
70 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
i ®Other sites + I 1 1 1 1 I I I I i 1 1 1 1 1
1 L _A_L_L J_ _L_L J_J_ _L J_:!_L_
I 1 I t I i i I I 1 I I i t 1 I i t 1 I
_r-f_i-4- '-f_1-1 T_ -1-1_r-t-__i-r_!"_i' `r-1"i-'i_ -rn-1-r-
-6--1-.}-3.-
� 60
m —ry—r-r--y-r-r-1- -r-r-t-r- -r-1-y-r- -ry-r-r--y-r-r-t-- -r-r-a-y- -r-rro-r—
R., _LJ_J_L_
1 1 1 1
-r-1--�-r---I-�-r-r----r-
r-i-•
50 '
I ! t I I I I I I S I i t
y. -,- -r-r-- -r-r-i- -r-r-I-I- -r-r -r- I- I r-
_1--1-.5._L-_4_.}_L_1- -L_1..,_,_J- _1- -1- »I»4-d.-L-_..d_}._t._I- -L-1.--i_o
N 1 1 t I 1 1 I I 11 f 1 I I I I I_ I I F ,_I _i_ I__ _i -t_n�__ 1 I i I
___I______i___i_'_ ___S -1-�_ -I -
r _["_i_y_Y_ _i_-t_T_1--'-Y_r_I^_7- i'��_E_y_ _P'_i"'f.,
40
-
rI-T-r-- -r-r-r —T—r-,--1- -r-,-I-r
- 1-r-
rn _4.-1.,_7--+- _}--+-'a-¢_ _I_-1-i._4--_'.s it_1-_i_- _}_7-...I_4-
' ' L-'- _L-L�-J- -L.-i-E-L- -i- A'L-L
1 1 I 1 1 1-i ���
,5.1 r-r-1- -r-r-1-Z- -r-1-'7-Y" -,--1-�: �--'? '-r-I- -r-r-i-R- 7
7
-77-
C/1 3 , S 1 1 I 1
-1
20 -1-'"i-r-r--'1"r-r-r -r-r-,""V' "' t-'7-r- -1- i-r-r`-'i"r-r-I- -r-r-r`I-
_I_
i l l s I I I I �1 1� I s i l l s i l l I I t I 1 I I I I 1 1
-l--1-r-r---,-r-r®® -�:'-r�- -r-r-r-r- -1--1-r-r---1-r-r-1- -r-'I-r-1- -r-I-�-r-
_I_J...L_L__J_L_L_i_ J_ _L_I_J_L- -1--1_L_L__J_L-1--1_ _L_L_I_.d_ _LJ-J_1.
i _1_-1-1 1 I _I -Si 1_
107�1-1 -Z-r 1 1 't -i-
�r
1_1L__�%1_LJ_ _1_LJ_J_ _LJ_�_L_
17 7 1 1 7 1 1 1
—t--1—T�...._'i'T.'f_I_ —T—r'"1_"1_ —('_I_'7—T_ _i"t'T_r"_l"T_r'l_ _T"(.'"I""t_ '-i'_I_7
1..__.{."4'_1--1_ -A._F--1--1- '_6--t-4-+- -1--+-;.-4'..._i-+-h_i- _'3--.1-..I_i_ -.1--1-;-¢_
_7____+_1_L.J_ _L_1__I_ I_ _S__I,_ i-I - i i_I I ,-L_'-J- _.i-1--1_ !_ I
y 0 I -I- I -
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Effective Normal Stress at Failure,aNF'(psi)
Figure 8. Estimated Drained Friction Angle for CCR
Notes:
[1] ARA data obtained from CU triaxial test results on undisturbed samples of CCR collected from SPT-5
(included in Appendix B).
[2] "Other sites"data refers to CU triaxial test results from undisturbed samples of CCR collected from CCR
Basins at other Duke Energy facilities.

70
1_y-.I-y- -;-}_}-}'_ -I-_1--!""i----i--1-y-y- -y-;-.I.-}_ -1"-i'-1"-F-
I 1 0 J_J- i- (- 1 1 I 1 - -(--L-1-...i -_J-i_1....�_
"T^T_.T-r- '-r-r-r-r-'-I-^i--(-"7- -'i-T-T-T-
60
I I II--1-�r-t-r- -r_r-r-r-
_L_L_I__I___J_J_J_.1_ _1-J._L-L_ _L-L_L_i____t_J_J_.J_ _.I_1_L_L_ _L_L_L_y!_
Jr , I 1 i I 1 1 I i i I ! 1 ! _I-_- 1-_I I 1 _ 1-1-! 1
- _r_i-(' "t-'l'i'i' 'T'T'T'T- 'f'r'1' 1 i 1"i'"t' YYT
50
EW,, -r-r-ir-r --1-�-�-�- i I t ( I i i I
-T-r-r-r- -r-r-r-rr -I- � � z�a rrr !r
-
_�.._p.,_I--i_ _-1--i--1--1- -�F.-d�-}-3-- -F-.tl--I-••f-"--1_-.I--J--1.. -'i-'!' i-'1'- -a"_F..F-F_:
S_L_L_L_ _L_L_1_-i_-_J-J-J_J_ _S_�.L S_L_ _L_L_L_L_
1 i 1 1 i i 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I 1 i I 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 , 1
.� 40 ^-1--1-'l-'1 T-T-T-r- -r-r-r-r---i--,-'7-'1- v'i-Y-T-r- -r-r-r-r-
..
•..I i t 1 i i 1 I 1 1. , 1 I 1 { 1 i ! 1�.7_ 1 I t , 1 t 1 i
1
-^t-R_R-Y_ _4'_r-Y"-r_
_LI_J_ _1_i_1_L_ _L_L_L_I___�l,__!_J_J_ _J_1_i_1_
1 1 1 1 _ I- i 1- I- i l l 1 - 11 I I6_ �T (]� - i_ 1-1-(-
rn
30 ]-i 1-7---f -r-r-i
_121 I
_i____I_J_J_J- _S_1-t_L_
J_J_J- S_S_I-
20 i I i ( 1 i I I 1 1�t 7 • ( ! I I I I ! I 1 t ! i I 1 I 1
-L-l--1--Imo.---i-..t_.d_J_ id/_S-.M-M-
1 -1^ I i I l
i -, 1_t I 1 I
-L-1--l--t._ _J_1 j .1- _1_1_L_L_ _L_L_L_L___I_J_J_J_
10
1 1 i 11 i I 1 1
_1_-r_t_*_
_L L._i J_J_J-J_ _1_1_L_L._ _L_L_L_i____i__I_J_J_ _S_1_1_1_ _L_L_L_L_
1 1 Y ! ( 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I I I ! t 1
',----Y'-t-'i-l- -i-T-T-r r-{-_.r_I"___I__I_-1-1- _1-T-T-T- ._r._I. r-r_.
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Effective Normal Stress at Failure,6NF'(psi)
Figure 9.Estimated Drained Friction Angle for RCP Corridor Soil
Note:
[1] Data obtained from CU triaxial test results on SPT-6 samples(included in Appendix B).
1

410 S.Wilmington Street.
DUKE .� Raleigh,NC 27601
Mailing Address
ENERGY®
Mail Code NC 15
OCT $ 2�19 Raleigh,NC27601
919-546-7863
October 15,2018 was c Ali on InPoraticna
Mr. Landon Davidson
NC DEQAsheville Regional Office
2090 U.S.70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778
RE: Asheville Airport Structural Fill: Memorialization of Courtesy Notification
Dear Mr. Davidson:
- Duke-Energy.personnel were on-site at the-Asheville Airport-late-afternoon on Tuesday, October_9,_2018
completing temporary repairs to the upper part of,Area I of the structural fill and hardening the toe of
the area. As part of a plan to extend the temporary repairs at the toe of Area I, a contractor was placing
rip rap above a known scarp area. As rip rap was added,the area below the scarp shifted, causing the
scarp to expand from approximately six inches deep to 12-18 inches deep. No ash was observed,or
released. Work was immediately stopped and I was notified of the situation by the Duke Energy System
Owner at approximately 10:05 AM on Wednesday, October 10, 2018.
Although no formal notification requirements under Permit No.WQ0000020 were triggered by this
event, as a courtesy, I then notified Mr. Brett Laverty of the event by telephone (left voice mail)at
approximately 10:15 AM..Asheville Airport personnel were also notified of the situation.' Work
resumed later that.morning, Rip rap buttress was constructed beneath the scarp-to strengthen the
area. Smaller rip rap was placed along the scarp area to protect it from storm water as Hurricane
Michael was approaching. The area was inspected on October 11 and 12 with no further movement
observed.
If you have any questions or need any clarification,regarding the information provided, please feel free
to contact me at [e-mail] or at 919-546-7863 at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
J n Toepfer, E.
Lead Engineer
Waste& Groundwater Programs
cc: Matt Pickett—Duke Energy
Scott Nordgren—Duke Energy
Tim Hill—Duke Energy
Ed Sullivan—Duke Energy
James McNash—.Geosyntec Consultants
Michael A. Reisman—Asheville Airport

Laverty, Brett
From: Pickett, Matt<[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 2:00 PM
To: Laverty, Brett
Cc: Toepfer, John R; Hill, Tim S.; Nordgren, Scott R.
Subject: [External]Airport Visit 11/16
® xte na °mat.Do :otcC"rck link• or open attach ents urifess Verified.Send 1'=suspicious email a a attachment to
-os •_
Brett,
I made an inspection of Area 1 after the 4 days of rain we had, and the slope has held up really well. As a bonus, I was
thereon Monday and saw our new drainage on the top of the fill inaction. It did a good job of keeping the water off
the north face, and there was sheet flow over the fence and no puddling in the area outside the gate.
Hope you have a good weekend.
1

p2vep!pppp-
. , Brett
From: Toepfer, John R <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 2:23 PM
To: Laverty, Brett
Cc: Sullivan, Ed M; Czop, Ryan; Pruett, Jeremy J.; Hill, Tim S.; Nordgren, Scott R.; Pickett, Matt;
Williams, Teresa Lynne; Woodward, Tina; Walls, Jason A; Kafka, Michael T.; Hanchey,
Matthew F.; McIntire, Mark D; Culbert, Erin; McNash, James-geosyntec; Michael A. Reisman
([e-mail]); John Coon [e-mail]); Damasceno, Victor-Geosyntec
Subject: [External] October 2018 Surveying Results-Asheville Airport Area I
Attachments: ARA_Area_1_Slope_Monitoring_Report_Q3_Signed.pdf; Airport Areal Piezometers and
Survey Data October 2018.xlsx
xternal email Do notcick links=oopen attachments3un(ess ve �f�edend allsuspicaus ernat asan_attac meet°to —
Brett- Below and attached is the information from the October 2018 survey at Asheville Airport Area along with
Geosyntec's observation (this continues from the September surveying results submitted to you on October 15, 2018):
Geosyntec received on October 24, 2018 surveying results collected by McKim & Creed on October 15, 2018 for the ARA
Area 1 slope pin monitoring system (Transects A through N).
For Transects A through J, Geosyntec compared the data against the baseline survey collected October 4, 2017 and
computed the relative movement. For Transects K through N, Geosyntec compared the data against the baseline survey
collected November 15, 2017.
As described previously and provided in the 90-day report,starting with December 12, 2017 survey data, computations
were updated to present the direction of displacement in the lateral (xy) direction as an angle (°). In addition,the
magnitude of displacement is calculated for both the lateral direction and elevation to better distinguish between
possible slope movements and subsidence, respectively. Per corrective action item 7(a) and 7(b) in NCDEQ's Review of
the 90-Day Report Submittal and Required Interim Measures Letter, dated April 30, 2018, Geosyntec revised the slope
pin movement reporting tolerance to 0.2-ft for recently collected data.
Geosyntec's observations are as follows:
• One slope pin (J2) was calculated to have displaced above the survey tolerance (0.2 ft/2.4 in.), in the lateral
direction relative to the baseline survey.
• Several slope pins were covered during temporary grading activities (G1 through G8; 16;J6) and cannot be
surveyed.
• Several slope pins were covered by riprap or damaged during extension of the temporary stabilization measure
(Al; 131; C1 to C3; D1 to D3; E1 to E3; F1 and F3; and H1 through 1-13) and cannot be surveyed.
Based on this information,the slope does not appear to have significantly displaced since the baseline survey events and
riprap stabilization was applied to areas of interest(H1 to 1-13). Slope pin J2 was calculated with potential displacements
that exceed the tolerance consistently through the slope monitoring program, but does not appear to have moved
further. In addition, Geosyntec will work with Duke Energy to re-establish slope pins or temporary survey monuments
for areas covered during recent construction activities.

I also attach the quarter 3 slope monitoring report for Airport Area I fill. As this is the first quarterly report, I would
appreciate feedback that can be incorporated into Q4 report.thanks
John R. Toepfer, P.E.
Duke Energy
Lead Engineer
410 S. Wilmington Street/NC15
Raleigh, NC 27601
919-546-7863 phone
919-632-3714 cell
919-546-3669 fax
2

Laverty, Brett
From: Laverty, Brett
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 8:22 AM
To: Davidson, Landon
Subject: RE: [External]Airport 60 Inch Pipe
Landon,
If the Airport is not going to conduct a new video inspection of the RCP then we should consider requiring Duke Energy
to conduct one this year.Any possible repairs to the RCP are likely a year off given the Airport's pace. We need to keep
tabs on how fast the RCP may or may not be degrading..Thoughts?
Brett
Brett Laverty
Hydrogeologist—Asheville Regional Office.
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
828 296 4500 office
email: brett.lave rtyp_ncdenr.gov
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778
_�`>Nothing Compares—,_,_
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Davidson, Landon
Sent:Thursday, November 01, 2018 5:06 PM
To:Vinson,Toby<[e-mail]>; Aiken, Stan E<[e-mail]>
Cc: Laverty, Brett<brett.lave [e-mail]>
Subject: FW: [External] Airport 60 Inch Pipe
fyi
G. Landon Davidson, P.G.
Regional Supervisor—Asheville Regional Office
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
NCDEQ— Division of Water Resources
828 296 4680 office
828 230 4057 mobile
Landon.Davidsonp_ncdenr.gov
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28711
i

Pmail correspondence to and from th,a address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Michael A. Reisman<[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday, November 01,2018 2:39 PM
To: Davidson, Landon<[e-mail]>
Cc: Lew Bleiweis<[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Airport 60 Inch Pipe
* C�xternal em 11 do nv chic links or open attachmen•s unless verified:Send al}�uspici©u email as an attachment to
-ee •.
Landon:
The Airport Authority has issued a Notice To Proceed to Kimley Horn for the conduct of the condition assessment and
recommendations for the 60 inch pipe. They will be utilizing the existing video inspection footage, plus conducting a site
inspection. The notice to proceed is effective tomorrow, November 2"d, and the sealed report is due back to us no later
than 45 days thereafter.
Michael A. Reisman, A.A.E.
Deputy Executive Director,
Development&Operations
Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority
E-mail: mreismanp_flyavl.com
Office: 828-654-3253
Mobile: [phone]
WARNING: E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law"NCGS.Ch.132"and may be
disclosed to third parties by an authorized state official. All e-mail sent to or from The Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority(AVL) business e-mail
system is subject to archiving,monitoring and/or review by AVL personnel.This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is
addressed. If you are not the named addressee,you are not authorized to read,print,retain copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you
have received this message in error,please notify the sender immediately either by phone[phone])or reply to this e-mail and delete all copies of
this message.
2

Laverty, Brett
From: Laverty, Brett
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 9:24 AM
To: Price, Zan (George)
Subject: Asheville Airport Area 1 Sediment Impacts
Attachments: Asheville Airport Area 1 sediment imapct map.pdf; IMG-0201.JPG; IMG_0212.JPG; IMG_
0214.JPG
Za n,
All of the photos were taken on Monday October 15th.Take note of the erosional feature next to the pipe inlet. I believe
the bulk of the sediment was contained in the former stormwater basin but sediment impacts continue into the woods.
My concern is that nothing is being done to temporarily protect or armor the earthen swale.
Brett
Brett Laverty
Hydrogeologist—Asheville Regional Office
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
828 296 4500 office
email: brett.laverty(q-).ncdenr.gov
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778
R
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
1

rS
u � t
ro� ti
an
4 1 c
of w
"i
SA
$ .i �`. *A�, p '� 3E �E��ka^l 4...•sid^"'�f/d
41
. � 5
l

I � �
+ PO +�77
A4 �
Ott—
�"-..� -p ��,. »�. ..�r., k., � .. -R c. o-' +„ .,... ,�t•`'- .�"^'K`�~ a },, al�� x,ll �
p� F' •" T
� ' A /-ICri r Y F�� •�x�� "5fiy v a L're1'r -... }a _ � W _`i
N;6V
� � F:-- � Q'i,�cRY �., ,.i a r - ��.�,' tr r�� ��&t�j���•.' /� r///�� dz R. -F N •k s �i
'`,d^.
x'�s'"e4;caw" _'+�7r /[" -a. _.1v.� �i'�, / �; � ."`. ' ✓�
s
j- f +, 4 A .+I 3 6 sP i,r Y "�.4 i^ 1 S' `S� 1�i •ld NT:
/ ' i •� y..�ti/"t �-� ry �r�7 �� +y� +$" •Y' i5,''�'r' �� �w
Ail
- +.
_<,..+.Y -
C: / -'` , 1af>•r r 9 �k`� ,y ., s fj,",yy a,, s!:o '�K'+ sly ,
,�:;x t t/ r.P
�y��. �!�a tr k'�r � tY �� -.� C��.�' � ����.,� Bpi. � t;� ��+ tCi✓,rh
� �' T�F/ �, •rFa"� �r } r'�'`t-� -�T✓7-�{�r�n�a+�Y .•fir+ ' _ ,�"`-�! ���� ,rTOi—.
,�I ..,�7r�, 1'...'.a t r ,i�,71-�'� -•;_ iY �� r r r �'�.•;z `.�k a6"�d�t�-.. �i / -/1� q- -� p.,-�,t 'h Y:
�f„; �"'�$` �y.a ..o J� '1`�'l W�A?d f�+f ri— `i'rT�Ar'-.y �.� } �C'fK' '"s` �rir 3-.��re•�.A s^'�y
�'�/ ^.:.. �`,/ ' rg +f'tj�#;�ff �! — 1r �"`b� ':r � }�. 71,-r,X " .,fi `� � .�cr.•�`b
�.�-.'�k,�j;�A, ra.- �,1� � ,t. it x i y x",{ t�G r� }C•3. �,Y, .r
K+�.L._
F77777�d
�'• ' }a-, '':)' "`, .:y. 4� rrl��'f'r� '�JA•`���'� ���'-r� <i�;F.t'-.aA•�i.6r�t.."�� .�,�/ -
{ LkN ,, ix7 4tf fadJrri� W.'- s
ct/j'��''+ � ;7-tr� �" t•+» tr• � JI„`,itt� o,
a��', •°t•, yy '^Y-- •"�l����„Y��� ``�✓"27t` � -,.�,' �.rl"'l78' tW.
- — �'/., �'�`. ,}t,- t r�/" st" �,•.:.-,♦ F9.rt{yf��T u; ; iv, .4 !4ai' �, � - ...
f ',.
y d" r a
(' 1f�.`x'"(/r '''�;�'" � r_A '•�ry -, .'`?"'7't�r��i NMI� -h`-��,r,�^9�;�d,� � +S��� Y r``�a°,�,�b+,� � �
�;�' r�,./ aa�, .��—s5 ,"•i'S��s. �r. !tii r x/fr"r-'�,DIF.a;"...�� ` + ��t.. ,��' � �- k?'.., .y�; �j�` �
�: r"!!j-'t-!� f+W �� t�l��e' I t�`};r �f✓(��� M1,�j� Li°$ � .+y, t �• l l�`
- r' r,, -Av a 'F 1vi ��... } �'%-h 1� !tY dli.. `i st-�, ��`.�S J,,. �.P r �+" t�..j ,�'r`r � t• :4,..
",'�{'.�? 4 � 7i,• y-.}'-'�r ����`'��, ���1 { ,a r ra �� a, t� �. "`r l._�.�m�`i-J`! ;l�a'�i�.'L;�'"�k �a `�+.�r�`�� i
ISO X L,
'f• ..rA/J �'r>��J.,( .V4'I,IlS' 'itl "EI.
"li!r,I /y� .}e- N k� 3.J,tlf+ ✓ 'tY_-,..F.A ldlf'a"�� F.+ _ _

i
-� ��FT' S SY'� �.-Li•c. �� y�-ra ?i _���` �, .,�'F �,�, � r-`" t, v v �3 � ..J j'R�v S 1�
�e t tytt.•4,�! �� _ �- yrl 3} i�,_. -_ ! _ c"47''r�.., =y
,t -'®• _�.4 :� r:� t,-,l • z'•," z�,:r:h t• '�,r,f :� < S"� � - ^}
.t, 1 r( �'d x� t .�pr�.,�• �.{ �,f L Y.� ��,1,2, ' ,.n£�•' 4 t '., � ��t ��S-,,_
f r n , �-/'a*+. r �� -ff �7 d_ •g�� �'� r+���l S�`r YiS �`i �,t..w ,.Y r J"
Y tai. ` .�.� ..It ar >y`. "r ,�&y ;'• 3 er``.y',". b .�. ♦y. i"cv�y ,C+a 0.0
p. k+ > r.r >7 423'a}i �'*•r�_•.'� � "��'r- �1'ai h^'w....�•"r aP :':u:
1 `
_ �, r � y 4• �, �
J[Jrry p�`A a
r ++al
a T!?v, ,4+t •r,S3
f 1'

s �� ,•�y ar, •�fis�`'� •�l;,ik� '�' t �' r,y:�"t, '� �{ ?�,p��,,v;.�3 � ?��, �,�E(•='4., �� ;3a�{ 1
at
7,a R
,p I I•
7 _ -i4 ,::,�a"" a ;•F? „a�1£ .. \,act r;�V, 5 *-:i�
c4tj~?� V;'G r� i7 }�.•uxdt'�y�i�`r>4"�, , !,"� ��.. ,•'` `y , Q k �'p+ {�'r yV+ :: �? �;- .�.'"ii. ' ,�wp •.
'A.. �. '4•< ,,ti 7 7 3e. 5,,,, �.�:. 4 u „4"`r;' `c,� ri:' �•.:•,S '-'�" 1} :`�`r. ,4.; ,"E'c4sJ,k�'�?•� ��5r, '�
•
,;.'i...^-.Sri.•, t'.;_ , - C S..`-.T n.,.:.fc o t:tiN c #a�2 sj'n�.--.\� yly. A., `Y ;�` ,: ::+r•
.,:... r f, ,., _ � - -- r :.• -,,.,., ,.-., -•a �.: '-t x r ? .t.: �+. ?r,,, s� ,�{,'�•��: �+,"�.,�'" s' r .� "�r,: -
•r.•,-:.. ,;.",..�.M1:»: ^: _<, -,.q.,_•.w ... :,.'H.,t„ .:.,( ,"i.''t5,:.\a 4 ��'�. :Y: �. �`f"c ,,. ..yv+? „ _.�,� w. �� 'k� �.5r. '��4tw ��• �, *,�'4C �.,
���a '�iE �,.`4.r.r..s• � '�;y
�'• •"? - `°n't; \�1.{4{L4 M Yy:V• rJ9} tr.''. 4'f,' l-+�'k C� S' 4'F'4,•t..\Y,''1._ :p
l �
,�.1,.,.,ill -'M-�'-. � :r^r �;r.. �_,..dL ii ,"x':., f.7A-�1�k' ';•.. ,,..�.. �. ^;.pj,!?•¢.-r' -�'=.,.r.-,,.
�`S_n ,th 4� 'k'nY :fa,GFwv UT.,.,<�ti_ 3- j"�`�}�;4..,� y' .•�'...r..1< �.K. T^ �:'S",..
. wt 1.,,,v. ?,.:-c'. -M MhK ay. *f' .•�,{. `.`+ii .};.. ',` '-'', +a..
`-'° '. '+y,,s r.L 'T \r. -.y�,{. "` at(V l��r ,:v� :t,•..
',G ;'�,,.. � Tc.• a-.::-•s" * --9 `' ""i. .i.
.�,,,,.. ,-?- .. s ,,,,. - :..�wk S,t...•..e. �..r, = ?w,�,...�.�,.,�,.ram.: .,,.y 'at.\ �+ .na ...� � 'k
. • "l.:.y..q ^.[.l.r - •4+.Pt, .Cy ..y,'! t���.,, ('. `•-,i' 'A(mil.^,' 'f'�•�-x -fit'` ,{•.`•�,i `: -��t '4Y: M -9 4�. _1 -.,4.4`eS�.;.-Sx "M1T> �4F ,yei y•. ,H h � ,.
ei`:+, > ti
,. . " _.fit '�:tw . :Y. ., „ .. �.��;, '� ;•e�",�, _ _�`4. rL• •k,•_.,e"tt�?^��PF"s�r?,.. � y"E,' iLKs' c -•Si. "`£��"i �`�a•,- ... c-
�;,, i. �\r;.�`. '��� .^n-,,;, �x, �- _ts. `:fb\.yak �"�'•,::�'• `�, Ca...�:'�.<`',�•' �Y.%� ,'�,-
',..#. •.. ._ ;:.'^a;. i:�, � .�` '�'�".�a... :.�;,- `-,• lye'-.,.,�.,��• •.�'47�7 \;r• ;j'r- �•�'•�,y3'.9, .qc..r' �' u,-�,s{"�.' i.. ,x=.f..� a�,tr - -
-
r
1»-
�yY z ,41. `•.�, ys..y},^i-?i" �t, � b\5'4 ;^�Y,q '^,�' "j�, _ ��c�s?, '�-�,y,�
,ac. ,. .< :•.. "N ti!.,cy. •tp„ ,_. ,. .<.t .'fji \ .per, �: � y"-'"�•,;.,;"` �,� b. .�.-r d"':.-x-,'�'� ,-e` �-�`�".'+���+��^� ?k
�..'�.•,'�,�. '�._, , �..: ,t.., ,'+4„... .. ^� } ...,'c. 's... �.`�h`..- �•,b.., , ( _.., -�'' :vt � �"�.k.:� .y• •`-4,?..�f :t�w:v �,' ,r �,�wf «'"'�,r,� a
...;.'Y^'y�. _ � ;.4�z�'# '�5 �lam,��, �,, e Y' t�t� ti� ,ey?.!'�i�•r ! o�" .ry.��'�'a'eS4J",..Y.:;+,.r• ,�.,= � '�-1y
- : �. "�` •.;y :' , , •• � 1= ,.rs;. �•, _ k ,.``. ,-.< l-� qer �• w, n`r,;. •,.' -„ rr,t` r 4'a;4`. b; ah wm�,-M,
. ,�3't•.=",a:15.- 't c�- '� :.P+.�.•-_.
.: .r. ` . ':x.-.a ��.,#, r .,mac,.•,., :.i..r.%; ,u a ,i+- iS#' crj 'r t,_.r �i' ew
-.�" • � �k.�,.l �..+r': - .'a'�, „"K„'¢a." s e:�,,(a. -`( - � ,•,� �s-•�,, -i, ``• 'nhcir.�_-� a_ �`4; �•� -..... '.,, .��''� -.
_ -,:,a�:. '`y LfF- }�w 'w-"'-r* 'k��L`v�,.:h '�`'�t^ .�x,.:�t ,,.ct�i�' iF' "u'` s .e'i''� •3w.. V-r.�" '�'-. .�^,.w- -y s., �5:"
o- CY-
,^r tl'
.X. g•r_ •' ' ���li 4�",, ^�.J r sSa� �`•r�<%. La*� ��j i'��f:� ��� ,t,, 1+: �'�t •.0 t, y �f.+4•�•7`',: u,'� '.�y +'�',g��.rw�� •�' '"z` �*\, y..',xi?""" �.'�x=�,'.'r'trk•
r. -- .?:\r` r; i.i4r<.�„N�'?' _.,h�x^'l"�_.�y,�'s"��+"'3.. ,o � �c .< �?''�" tr+ � ��' •+' ;:}yk�c jq�.�azr "xf�,��"i"r.!,;A
_. _ \ ~`mac -��`x "'�� .t i���h'A, �. �%5 �" �'�`.�k .�..-� ,.C`t� �""' :,,, 4 �. _ rr2 's"'{Ica,- '\C.. - tr+-:`„�.'•�..5�`°•'��'"7��,•�a•',.
,., r� '�# .�, +4-.` -a,`2jo .,r+•4 ` .�' 3;rF tJ Y�r.-.. .r`'�r.+Ae<'i.''c�'^k �t,-���' T'y-'�'4+{,` �.
4,,.: rr;- c �„•;� "•, y.•G tii �✓-.h:,�`�. - � �k� �-'�s,.F r,, '""y yrl'�•ww
=. r •. *k. '�y, rr-,t "a: . �". •�.. J`� MI, o5#�'!' �+•f v, �°�' 3�T�y` -•-n. -�•
"y':....*@�, �iZ- >.�t �",�: c'. §,'.ti�"",y '`Mt�, •"�' •'�f S.A ....^,,` r "� r. k. ¢3'T �_ `�"�" a`.s,.q+..
a+pt. , ,is lam:iaY,-• Y. x`r ,-,cam. ,.``�.:• i�j,e�..�lrsfi� ,- '�. .� sr, �. y'� gws.�`.�. �. _.fir. x • 'i,�ry.. �,.:,rk;
O`-� r t� <� '� .. <'�',y.�iy�4�,f�'-<�.'".,�• •.�,Lp �..A` � �"� -c:F.� �, 2'-. '� �a�P:� c'. v)T -
::�{, ,`..�"- �' �' ��.-�",x•.'�` :3;"'% - - °;�j�'.y.'�ai.,', �'z ,t �';.t_'-' x4`��'.�� -`AEI c "CzF "'x• '�_.d_ -'�'cT�'..�r�,. �z:..�"t.,
_�L F e g� '..,a,: - � �.�x�.�r'���. �-',v_ 9. S' '�`.,a a`s., } �i'fz.-• "s '�'tr'..r„ "ate-^'r.3e�•� _ ,,.�,.
P w• i 1,:. '� � ,l. ���^� � �'�'r=•^','�. +r,.:-,-,4 �5�4�4., ,q ..'� it a ,� 's'-..ro+,".y "''r �,i. v, ,;?'`::•. ._ �� -
�;,,. .: y-�.. +�A' ^ .i .,,,', .-.;�'�•-a,,, t .,�(u,.^•q. 7. .:Shw. �•4 1•;�^ ;j(ta�5:c icy '�iy,• - � +rJ• �S+.G�_x.
_ n.i :.:',-,fi^^.i �-,'nr,� „ ,4L•-•-`:tom �+"'" ��„wn,_ "�4- r,Y��,,.��� w*c,� `�:+7��ar�'�','� r`� "v_ .�F�"`' x. '•U'ri, �?3��.�� � �4:k .
' �5'L,''.d+� � ---�. fz- Al •\`� 4�` •, n�..
„-'__ a.-' .t?.J .�ic, � l^•§,•+w.:;9' ;n��'��.r^"'^-`� ���a�• t k�_ p �l o .��•�-�'7'''� :c',. �- �>�'�Y!:
-"ti '�.-.,. � ,� ., ,� �Zs....�', it t.• -,lr�e, r� ., ��'5�f _ xyh.,t4 �r5'��_,�'s� _ +°.��u� �_.�� �M1
_" ;.;er :�•,�r-�y r{',' . � °.` '' "°•=r�'' :::'` �� ,�e:.' ,y��TM w' .y r �•`'Y.k� 's� f" � �'E"^x•
` �i{ e:,. �, � ��Yy '(�4",.�� •o �` y �i*3�- -_ � ��roN��' �" '�, t E ,_���,., ,:CS-��'�4- �v..,�� �r;.
v `r .�A }�A�-+ �. ,�4r P`•r`� v'r: �'�.^ .�;x a ,\ # '7`_ t-4`{ ,r ..y^• 'ra .,ti Krr- 3�,
*. "' ^Y•"•,y- :- v..` 'a1�'k-•' '� w,, q •• .y -'a�..�,i"Y='•ice..
- E' ,i t�,. r (-b ,.^.,r� p- ��_` � _ '' � `x.� -..ra 1� �•r y,� t. .F t' w � �^ �
J
- �.'•" .. .'��'� a^'`... ry:v' p� "`1K.k• >, f X� •1;M„i< 'Y7 t�.+c"..,l � � qw.t T .d 4�•�q��y -r � 4 a�F:'^''�',.
_ s
,gyp.. +.� :, �`- u ,,,•:,,..� '�qe�� �, 3� r�WY, �\�. a ,,,, .,5��4�� �,,� v
• {m.,-.-,. 7 "'c.�. � �i;` - ,.. `n �:� y •\�yLi a�.�;3.;: ax' _ ..,.r\ � .� '''.,s; � ��,r"�,��6°xy�` 4�„�,�..
is•„ d
- ., `, •� �.,.. � 5a^ � ,'alit• <� _ y�
: m v "� � , ! 't ety i "i.,t� � '�.._. v'c �yb `.�.. . ".a.,<n �},:,• :+ r( .{r�� ,,..� �.'v2 /it' a �� e �..
;.. _,� ,,, r. -p,.`•�<A q ♦ A itil �z,,. r -:.N. Z � �2- 'CAS "• w ,�-�,`�"� yk:. ,• ,..�.v • •s t:';. ... •'- ,j',y„ .;1�1� o �1 at�� �,-.'+'"zr�y`. M� „-.y,, y ,,i �'sV+ y „��„k" �K 't. :.5<c T x,:
+r _ , � ypy���4 47�;,¢''. +�.t�t' *� t '�k \1 `ri�,• ,��a�'N^� � �`$�.^a+r^,.,� _ �' !!,'YS.
-f. ems'. yr. "; �i�/�� •Ct �, � .� ..� s.z, ��,�F',.'"tlti
r
."a
,�,,: •° ':;i. ,j. t •d4€l r�`': a� y i _ -r ;, ,k'7. ;'�:•+v„t: ,; a•�� 'Z.i- �•:•�� �`���,..- _" <r,
�.,.: � � -.,Lab'f�.+t� '� ti `. brt �?• .�b:'.a,- � ttr :4,yk:: x4+ i �`.e`` }�. r'"� �St`'.�� y
- � �:; "", ,cif.:- xi 'hJ B ,� �• ,1� Ph, .M7 ""9r �•} "sb ,y c`-. \, ` �'rl _
... 1 a - tq�.F•, ;. ,r.;. r
,
°21Z,11
,wLV:.+
«T��"�iY; ,; 4ffi; is _._. 1V d?a .'- ' ;f ", m? 5� ,. rb ;}, f �:'. 4Rr• ;E ^.1.. .fit 5 'So- "\ _
y',p,. '� - "`�:. ,;,..• w:y,.a " ('1+1 y�l�+�"`w�,i z 'v`t � �9tiSr ^_ yt-.0 \':_ r ,}, i 'C ty ro4

r i 1 t
Laverty, Brett
From: Aiken, Stan E
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 4:08 PM
To: Price, Zan (George); King, Melissa I
Cc: Riddle, Shawna; Laverty, Brett; Davitlson, Landon
Subject: RE: Asheville Airport Area 1 Sediment Impacts
Za n,
i
Thank you for the pictures and information. We received an email from Brett on the 11th m and Melissa forwarded it to
Shawna. Shawna has contacted the FRO and is scheduling an in Please feel free to let us know when in your
regular inspections you observe potential issues.
Thank You,
Stanley E Aiken
Regional Engineer
Land Quality Section
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
828 296-4500 main
828 296-4610 office
stan.aikenCaD-ncdenr.gov
2090 US70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778-8211
"Iothirt Compares-,
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Price,Zan (George)
Sent:Wednesday,October 17, 2018 9:38 AM
To:Aiken,Stan E<[e-mail]>; King, Melissa<[e-mail]>
Subject: FW:Asheville Airport Area 1 Sediment Impacts
Stan,
Does the Asheville airport have an open E&S plan for this grading work on Area 1? I am concerned about the lack of
ground cover and matting on this swale. Can you have an inspector review this site?
Thank you.
Zan Price, P.E.
Assistant Regional Supervisor—Asheville Regional Office
1
i
I

Water Quality Regional Operations --on
NCDEQ— Division of Water Resources
828 296 4662 office
828 231 9634 mobile
zan.price(a)_ncdenr.gov
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28711
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Laverty, Brett
Sent:.Wednesday,October 17, 2018 9:24 AM
To: Price, Zan (George)<[e-mail]>
Subject:Asheville Airport Area 1 Sediment Impacts
Za n,
All of the photos were taken on Monday October 15th.Take note of the erosional feature next to the pipe inlet. I believe
the bulk of the sediment was contained in the former stormwater basin but sediment impacts continue into the woods.
My concern is that nothing is being done to temporarily protect or armor the earthen swale.
Brett
Brett Laverty
Hydrogeologist—Asheville Regional Office
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
828 296 4500 office
email: brett.lave rty(�ncdenr.gov
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778
N`z_ _ -�Noth ng Compares
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
2

Laverty, Brett
From: Laverty, Brett
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 4:43 PM
To: Davidson, Landon ([e-mail])
Subject: FW: Asheville Airport Area 1 - Photolog of Recent Site Inspections
Attachments: Photolog of site inspections of Area 1 in October 2018.pdf
Brett Laverty
Hydrogeologist—Asheville Regional Office
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
828 296 4500 office
email: brett.laverty(a1mcdenr.gov
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Laverty, Brett
Sent:Tuesday,October 16, 2018 10:29 AM
To:Wooten, Rick<[e-mail]>
Subject:Asheville Airport Area 1- Photolog of Recent Site Inspections
Brett Laverty
Hydrogeologist—Asheville Regional Office
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
828 296 4500 office
email: brett.lavertyancdenr.gov
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778
1

October 10, 2018 October 15, 2018
4 }j
,r.� '.� :�� s:.�w'� ��.E"s.w`3:., "��� ',��.1<•.,a �"AL't :: �*� �.�':L?��-'2r''�,w^s�.Yt-,,.
-{-v: �'�► `,; `. ems"`:+.� - :�"_ X. � '�•
_ 'c'9�' _^'^F"v 6a..o`c���-"�'c1�r-a...�F¢ �g„'��v� .�Zw•';� •� _'�;`.>•,:;,;. �� '•-=: t�"�9� � ��� �j �'y'�,.
♦.._ .,. &��y�,:. ^v�yu ,....� '_,.rTK �.�w �ti.'�F �,`�'�„�v�„�::::y:'s'z F i ��L - , ,y y {.�{Y_7� .S,zJ,,�C'- 3.� `Z��v 4�.
.�._ °`''�-sa�`.,:+1�'.'�. -'"_.��"Si'�,t���a,p0-=t-���hLy�,`,'ae.;eC�'�v.r ck9"'�?�•:.: .7 - n '�` �'
r;... ,f - - \ �. �.f°'�`�S. ..,v,�2..4, r' ti' � n ` �C�"•,�r ,� �"P=2T,,_i;1,'-.-�,�"�Ta -.>'���
"�y�.'! ;�..i "� ':. �z_�:. 4: �4 ,Y•;\' `-+,. k1'..,x-c,,..a., � t .�f.. a.: .^;�•�i"i > aR - r+ ':i`.w, 't.. "..•+,y�'Kbd+a�F.A
— ',�-:� -t���''^'".--,.i- •- - ;fit -+•.'."��i„"�:-3i`>c:� .a:P�.1"a'�-�..,.;°''�``si^: 6•.L" .�:,r"'�.i' '��;_ .e', - " :S a.•a•�.*✓Y:r'-� -�,i.A�,�r
..0 ,�. -.'�y`"r. ,f - �'�' -.�a., "s'�,.. V"�:`.vx .<�'�._. a�...�rx s t� ..1`�.�e.•��,,. �J9:.r� - - - - ��-,' � c G u-,, ""t`��4�t` :�
F i
v; ° �` ,.'� � .- + - >y;..+'�*I)"`�.''.?..«�. -,S• .,�'v.�c` �,ri.,�.:T.x r�:iti�> -4' ..•y�'?. r.„s/, •,+.e>,�,,.. - �•, x'.:,..,. I,
`-y- '�v. e'•; � _. `"may :tip ~H i- ,.o•.,,���� r -� . ��r.-C`�__ it'�,t♦... >.,w"� ���L'6`,' k, �.sz'S.,e..�__ � - �:.. .� „a.:.._. .,a v�•+...�',. rY�.3, "`�.�
xta � d''� - - Ft:• '°fit _'�r ` [ m-Wa'•`.,�"^y,_•-.- d �-�x���,�,��'��'"%C" I i,Ir', •7x, P,f. `�., k ��-� fr.,.
µ<-.- r.:,x _ ''ice-� � �•kz-, ;�. ,�,;., :;.;-�1!_ '�- - - ,L. ,�.-.��" �.,, _ `♦i
,
.F L
�.av'E•-i. .F•.
r _
.r ems.-'Ya. '., ..-. ._ _�-^-T v- : .. .-;. r'.� �:"' ;�`^ _��„ptl^'•- .�_y.��4 ^��` ..-r;1 P _ ,. ;�.� n `'
,�. �.� „ �' • � � _: > �= ,'�s - --: .,:- /--�."`� R4 _ ;.rr=. .�,-ems,=~-a
}
,..,�.,.'Y���+. .. -, m .,, .r Y$ e .... ,. -c. ., r7,,.. 'e"3'cA�' 'Si �-`-{: ,'ki,. t.. n:��:J'o ! d ��t� _=Y„-•:a
'+-. _ r,>- .'v - S :, .. ii, y.} ti t r, ' � l � ��- `v'!�. _. _ '•t '�"-..._4 +c7+ � �� � '�-_�cY-1 q�+�
W _ ,�__ f,'- �i,• y - ��^�r taw:+�. K':- i�:Fr ''�� �r':.`' / -'�. _ e'� �, •_f_
3- '.,�_- ,. t -._ . dam .. ,< a. .,,• - -- ,. :.-. •
MAW
�,.. .v�h ����_ a 'ti• ,,.:-, .���. ,�. _,x��. ,.1
-- pia_. e.a+�- _ :_ -,_, - ..:hTT"� ..,,,,y � ..: - iLL�. .• FS:.t'iS'"!` ,.^�,,:. -'�•� �•'is^ .J ���' s1k�.1*ei�_:;fl'++9, r^U :.�� -
.,. _- .. .....,..-.1 _* -< �, yr�_'��,_S� ti�♦'"�.s�- ��,.r$-,�„� '.',•••y _`'mat=' •'6�+':3i-'.h _ �, v�`
'� c-e.'.. 'G _- W;, _ w�':aa!'�.. ;3'> ac. � •.-,>,,,a"s-� {y': .ems �SC .. €�-. :-2.:e s: •f-..
-
_
�.. r.,-+,;.. ', ._ - -•. - -.:. _' :-_ ..., - - _ ... y_. a :,i� - '-_=.,43.r'� _ v.. - 'tr �d
:v
{-:. )) ,� _ ` < , __. - 61 5 4 '.,r � r.� .y Ti- ..y ,.' 'Y,?t -'.?;:,k': ^� ',',-,w�7�1 � �}p` 5�:. ':>�'••. �E }
..r .1•A.: - � !»-,'.C„ S - ,r_. � (� � �" .;n`e•G "",t�, r'� Ars. 'u.:s:i �' � .I,.:.....,,at' � � i',^ ,}_,
�.� v-� .i � w�. '1J,{.:.p. a... y.R 11F. ♦ � •...'.-... .\a y+w .r c� •"i^J N _ �•` �r� 'J'-...'F 4 �� ^Y'
c � � ��1� ..: .,-,.� ��w�•s_ -..t6�:•.. "_ 'a - 'di.. ,.' _ v c .-'%� r'_<r - '�''A� �4•.�t> `'.GG�s;'ya�•.,t ru�:' fit.,^,,.. -:lt.c
.>... .. >t<. -'� . �L .. t,. ,.,-. •,-+,-- ,....-. �s., - '�.*'°5•+... "5. yr. Q� 4A 3�:-..-.
.._. , -,:. .: a3. >. •Fr. ..� 3 i. . ...' ctT .y .._ ., „�,P+, &. �*!" _. .tea k.�.. 3 d�, •*.r. rj ''\�.'-`�a�' ��" „d: +�,-• ,1�,,,�,,
`•`,_ "r�:s-'sr ��3: was- I` �� :w�..-•H `^- _ 'tir_� .� r � ��
Y
d
,
- S> ..�� r+�:as.. -'� o-:.�..�,:.. -n.- _ .., .,. a S c,.•r. +1.,-a,, t,- �y r�',,C.,:- ,y F,. „� ��'.:. r.,kt: rR- t
r
'Y1.6♦ S, ;+.X '.- , r S �::-.._ ,,...• �.• ': ^'lt�n�l re 't?'.,:, „r _ - r - '- v ,1 'S"T'�- -4 �r',s. a.•(•t •t
F,_.. +.. �;a li � � .�.. 't'< >. ,r ,w ... ,, ram'S, -:-.m:. •.r. •, By; _ r "sy �•�, ti 1=>Ja .,•aa r�ss: •:�.�r.
:,....t: -Y,� 3'�,u.. ,;. tt"....�,. r „:. ,..�. T-..r.-� s. ,> ..,, .�-- ,w srg•. ,-:. -ri -... rt�..:.i 4 , �.,.A �.. , $. , < •, ., E'C �'♦,+ s.'r.v.
„. S �. �. e .;; .{. %1.r-=.r�• �- +.,i-" .. � 1.+-. -gin -,.V',...- of � s.
:�'.• '.:.- �.x:s .;, k^ r.„.:...>-. .,. r_ ..r.. q.s 'f2' - is,•, ti �'ti •q ,..M.-f.. si.' r=�"
-
.. *?l,r ',�1ijh, ,�.:'z IL�ryc> � ti4 _ C"tto„, j. :,e` i R t �J � �' `r '�'•- - '-,
�a r.
3• q' .i.-, �:<.+.. may- - .'f�, � �' `;' �..� '� -, �.> -c. c< � -
1.,r
fa'•3r+.,J r j �i R.I'>ti '.,�: Y Snv �I � �4•'
,
�-�„ :,:-- : ..ram= '� r...a, ;� ,. l��Jx , ?. .. x- . ..:� :'„ Fy `� � _•r•, .:a� _ .�.. ,+r•
, ( .•„rr1 .�.-r•�,.. - 'ice.,_ ,-. =•��.,-,�.� -.. ^r. _ .-���r, 4. ..:.. --s•. a ;;,'iw., +�, v� �` �Sx � q�.
.j _. � �. s..♦ r ,,,: .,_. .• .-c: .�i'+a. _.b :..?�'�x. C«.,t - .:r`; �._ ,r•..'� s ._ �= �'„"fi - -
Al
• .., r-L ^, ,..s .v ., -•ac` ,.,t .- _., e ,,, _..�-\ 4 x.d _� (t-._, �.., .n+..,_•ye:.. .�:E;e�? - �- .�a � - `>- F
_.r-- - �"f.:�r -�'. .^...,t - r „ yy .ro;. °? � r 3. �.x, ,r 't!' Wit- C' 1s-�;. •t.
... -
',. ,a `�-a .; ,Yr.,.� ..t§ �:". -�"-'�. � .- {,.s'•r%, +._»..! + `t r^ � - i `�r.D:.' < a.r-, a4,: mac.;- w.„
n
<< �, ,.,.,r. .; :<,; tJ ,.a ...,. t+' ... .<'k'=��=,c�.. -.•tiP>a :_ m ... �_ _-� � ,1 ,,i rl r�... :,•i;' ,. t. ,�.
v � -i6 :..r �r,...-ff..'• ... s.x �'•.. '"'k _ }a ro. ,,�-�.ur.:_ e .:.+..... - :.:,.:_-...ay. ,7i 'la-c. a, s.:: Jj':t.s.5 -y�
�''~�' .y-.s.:r,- - '" +-:rl�.r.. rs .'"c -4�'::..� ' ti. - .:k. -_ .i ,{ ~'s+,..^y•.;�_ 1' _ .K>4: -� �
'- J' �-- g �•`LG, .<,.• :E`� --�r .iw `•� � �!+ •. a K a4Y i�1•d.3 s<� •R.qy, �:� _-}i' r,. g ; .`��,.'�•�
�:c:a,. _.... acSd ..i. 3 -;a'-C '��`�va�,. :�- - f•� ",. -,.3,y3 G"r-..,�t,i .0 �� t ,r Jti 4 h. fir•-.yr�„ �=i.;
_�5__�J����,.:.,e_._.,£::� ..._._-.._<•n.� _. ._ _. .1_,r:G ram:L... ,�-me: 4< », , _ `��:�.:.'-*4.,.��s�:.`.�'�`
's.

77,97M
4 ,E 4t. },r r 't fir. .k* +, `�'' w•�,a�easw- f ra ,. - _ ����� .- ,_-, ,t:.+ , _ __-
All
• � r j��d H k - :� r � i t �a 3 �"c ,iJrar^ ;� .s [ a -,,f ,a.' ': � "1 "q r ..
• r`{W. 1 ,; *, •. '`. l.F ,.ipt3 - .sSr�'n' 14 4 �T,.a ' .,
r
• r, ��,t .'..,�. gF����`,^F�''! 'ccf ,�t: 'c"' .'� .�fdG:.•?' �.�,�. _ _ � �"" '��','.:�.� £,.yea �.p�1,�,��� 'kL,(4� ,� t •-
._,���i f?f' .S,��y •f'= �'`���s {" 'f��;, �'��� `,iss't1.,.?7�-•r�: +��a,^�_r 'ot£ 'gip.' y.,.riti� ik"A'�f^ {�a��•rA '
•`� ' T J� /•"• :.�i\G ;{,;.,�•G7\ �71�` S;u e-.,� 'ti r - ,T - ILI
� 1... •Y.'-i ;� "-� ':Xg. ! P
n a _ � �'\��rr 7�"'" _. °':-��-�f*�,��`'`�5y���- �,�^�s��' L„�y��f"�r-..x- � f:•. `'ba„� •, \' �a � -cx.= n..:r � y.:
(• ,,,, -, '�,- �aa -Zy�... ��- ,'- L.('.-. � i� t y� ��„
a ,,r,� e �� pr'ti�,r��r _ '�� ,�-tr(� '~+y/�j•�,.a, � �- 5 y\�'t•,�w,. ,� �.,
_ f ).:�'M1�` p�.,�,�i►-7`:, -r- �''�'c-:,, _w-� � rs �. ...�• >f _ ,.., ��+.� a 1 � 'p, �,` •::s�^•�• "�. � a
` w ,� .` ��';` �' s=� •A- � o +�F-%,. G��ra � ' � i .��s+�r _n Jla y�h .��! �;`i..��� K,�q��'� -" -"��'{Q
r _ ��'z�k' - - ��+�'" ,�.-• ..•_^•+ rs..- _ y�'��3,�.rp b,+•t,:�'. �•^•r'� ..p- lr ��� a"Y ��'rt�..•r•.. �^•s -�k"t = - '�:
,
"v� 1,,•^ "�'+ � N � ,. �'� ,r -��`"T- :�` - y�_ �\y` 3f :'---'� •f,7r' >..'4�'i•.._ \l.�-" `r Y'� 7X `;,.�r•�::k _ -�itl- � r ? ry�=
�P.�`-+�'�4�,�_ x-.,. r`..•r" :}"..'�' ._� •,,�/'\•- _ r.,., �, -3'.'� I,^ � ,;.SEA-�,��, �'A,�, ,., 7.r�s._.- -_ .y:,,,,,-.el �'� ••e--i.. T\- t r3'8-
1,: - =�"-... i.+ �,. F�--�� '!..rt�!2; n.-Gr•' ��,.:Y.i' k¢<t a`�'B�'K t �`•"/- 'i•'�• �' _.1 "`���-•u�`���'�'.�F�i
,,, � � 2ls4� s � H` !"r •-.i- y°''f%(- - _ ,r.:,.�, (`��'•'`'r'�'.: F•,, `-7,�n' =a.'-a``� �4� .;��.�S e�°� 7..=1;�., -•�' '��--•3-
•
z
�;: _ _ _ Z - ,r,,,_�`'- �.-�' - � t� � .-.tL.'F =,?�A'-...- �5, • to v' :r,:-• ct �"r`t}i •-,�v.�U`'�� �r `�' '.ar..
- �� _ �. ��_%a tt s �-, -1:,' .ty � -';' .t+� >a -�k i�• 'r �`/j4•�.., r a, �5�..rb� y���'!�:,� '� a �'" .��lsy�-',fi •.,• ��,���is
5 xz.-m; � - ��r» s. T'� S�!,;�`' 'N• :�• ��, a:' .1�.,{ .�' r -. - _�,�. �: �_ ,fe +mod" �.
,
y
�°��•s�-,\ ,. _-� �v `ice. ..:_..: s��� -. fit. `r�r Pam. - t`.1' � ;.sr� ^`.� �}.
- ... . Y -+'_"' ♦� _a �..:-. � : -.., '.' ' �'.i+.. _ �'E_•. � -�- _K - �.R 4''Y- - It '�t..
,;rr� -_ E -- ,•r _�• ',yp' r.a �.. � f/`-;-•a�."� �..r a _rT�-- \�i., �. ..,.�$ ,,c y •'° t•.
r
. - •,. r. •'rr ..�A,.::�,. � r2 ". '• .::. .n. .., ��.,t .' ,"'t'' �� `�: ��,,�re��s��.` .is •ty,s�•• - ;, 'r-ate•€`' �.y� ,7,,,�.
e �'` ;r`�' 1'3,- -4,: �!" .;, .r y>w• . . , < i •"�`°' '=-'�-' ;;^.`,1 r.;.�s", _ �J'nyS era.. a �'� 'c' -
r� ,�+��r - �� :.� �i�!� •,•'__., , T t.. L `. �. Irhl.•. r _F,#' :�`. •.�,.�`^ ,�Y s7" r. a
{ +s',•+:.--•-ps � n - .��,.i•t„r. t�. . - � �- y - c- r' - -}�Y�'��, �.__r�`�{ -m.-�.�y, },-� ;Q:?; _.�" {, ` ; ' ::¢� '.fir
`a-..+.>� .r -.r � r�a,L`-f+i:'°•.n t' '..LC"xg's� a 'T - r" is• � _ -`-�r`��.413� r. '�� 'J.. ..fie. 's.
'-7• ;fir.,.,: .;- +, Y a'S�,y,„• / -- - ? `- /=. ` .' 1,. A - 1
,
's
._� r.:.r r-�...• � "$ „fir...c-+�c f .•. , ,7 � ..�, Y.:°Ny;_ �..p'_, ^r•Y:. Pt i L.a ?^ -Y J.+. V
.+ *_ae j"1- � :�' 'r;� •� e: S,.t i 7X{ sJ•. ,�.r�'� ,, �;.- �.�-�C-w��' ,k ,, '_-` - Y- ►d. '� ,.
-
�Hy..}Lat- �...�,L✓``�`./-J'r' ! C _9�Z R.,�ri�y <4Y.74� \ � .,..d 1 r!,a' ,XLt , ��:''' _ - ' '=a_'l. '�i ',� , � S`r i�:��•
� .5,r•_ , _ 9 � •1:-.�'i- I :'s'. ..t' � �:-� •, ~ `�' aF e. �� � `� F • ��1'^.,���w' .,.,, , .� � P^.i.
yam'• .. '^ t -.
"�...•+ :v"y',r�"._Yi' '"�4 - •y �t ..�{!`Ra f 4f�y, �' i,+.*- yr, •-� �',�•� 1 Q'• ..•'•. f _ -,rr'
- 2• •' �`�. _ ra•,yr' Wo
4 "�,Sf, •/ -�', .:� N�` `Z%i" Y. _ t __ 1. 'Lf •+'i•_ ,A CC f'T-r1 Y.,7
s ` -
�`�SIS �;dS.• ' " \"+"' � ' ` �� _ `,� 7:'Y�`; *f�.✓r a
f �f•�,.y .tea* �r Y► Lk,+ `y _ �.4i.� 1.�; �ii. y \ iVT`/ r�y 'ni,
•' �' N�f
k:. > ,,--. _ `: `•_. � �r:6.. ' '- -. � - ,-.;� , o - r. a. _s-=' ��... `ya I� �ki EI� � - i. .-•�tr-;r a.
' ; �.. -T.,_ _., ta`.`tr+ .t�L--' � 1 = �°"'-fit"'- • .� � �` �` -- "� -F� `,'., 'ia.,
.r 'f-a. „�, �T i -• �� .a "• 'lt�� .. a. - ��y�,�.• `(�. ,.�{ni� � _ ' .,.r„ r �'d �_'•c.�• '\ -a •,v�-,,, � _his_,
�yy� t r'�, � r H J- ,�ry q��,l �„�i� � t� _ ,�_ �rr. .t Vf•' � r� �a:J • �`�� , TN
•� ; J 'Alf"
4 -.,;j�;, fi•.� .fix j'!,, .� �, •rr S!-� �,. , ,n ✓`rB.. '=.. '-" 'x^...,t,�
.3-c� ,;;�,>. � r r:,•..•-,. �. •, ,r�r . 1',7 .•���E Y, � a-.. ��tr\ - '� f,,•,!• { :i ♦ i' / � -I! \ �
�,(
i'�✓i. :::.,,` . ,.::.:L:r<� �-'� ;.arr,- rN rt�- �•j �� .. ',•{�-'`-� M�' � - >•-i' '�e�... 5 '�� =\ y'3-,• rq,
s;
i - �a 'kX ':t1 • � ,;Y�'�j,. -y vt� E �„ �,H._q rr� � \-i},E 9�' f ' r����. -., �� •�� .��_-
•
/
• .`.'f'"� fi.-•'es '* tr '. - � =Lrts2t� i- ,^ -""'� 1�AL
�,. ,.t ;z4�RP �'' ,t+` � �\ r•� +,��4�Y-� t
x

October 15, 2018 s
i
x,
.,, „,.. `. - ..° f"" - �`� s-• �j> i� �'"^-" � �� � •T �...- +"fir;{�
✓
s_ - ..{ 'iai +1�.. v '�'"-•'� ". kl'"s+ca.,Y
IF—
$ � -,�w,. ar. � •;.{.._.. f ', w..`; r�i ��✓ � r'. f``r,. '""`.� Y �a 4a�'1Y �>~ ,�}, '�,`' L`it �
• .Y
,r,• - - ��.'"ir -�'� y�y�:t �.-��1� ��`�C'; '� � X�.-^l� ���`^4 �,Y z J.aX�
� }.. _Y`ry3 3 yt+- � �� ti r,.,�"'y7"_^' � -�.'W � .} r_-;� �y'�"i'� �•i,@S � 1 _ D `L
•- -,� .. k �- y ,-.,. ..•a. 44�. .�� eir .��- h�,'�,-� _x`�.w. �� '� ti. J�-'-J'�f.... .r�.•'T.�`.
•, Y
- ��. ♦ ''� �.. �" F-r � - vTj'Z,� _ :%7 C'i.4'? '� 'Ca4i �._sr �-2+'�v. � t _ 'Y
i ,��� 1
� _ Ost"-,. J.. -.._ .d1 .�+.t.� r� - - � ��,�� r�� r y�-,rr• ,�� �+� to �Gfi .yJ -,�'��,, ��
� -Yak �r r.' y. <��' a �,r 4.•. �, L�'`� �, Y _ �;_cr`- �fx�tr;. � ` � +� a
k, ,- r.✓ ,,. - � ,. $''�i.,�Y`S�t'�` ° { U _4. 3!;" :�5� '�, ��" .v'¢x� rf � ..l". �`
_'y ,`�� �r..'�_�-£r`'y�- � � ,'�,isr �o-�`-' .Y+'� ,). � 5� i✓f= +�FC� .sy:4_� rat '"r� - '�'�- �e-A';`*`�
I h
•;�r �f4i., ..y! �e ,t,�`r,: ,vr1. �' �Y'. ry IA,Y_ ,�'..Ham.�"� -.. ~�� � °y r- 1"',,.F'" '�,� _ � � r -'�$'R�:i
rt;. ,�. k�ylrr _ 'S'..`, ti `� .< � �3 ;�. K' J,r� �,�� \gel; -` -y � i.�� 1�. .t�. ti �.f�S{e�k}'a, .. .,�.y". .;��•
�� ��r• i^ ys> f � � � C "'� �k'h .,�1F': � .t.E�� I a i. �� sR �,u.�.rr .•:� y .1
��.
y� I
yr ,. r •se. .... ,�. �.%`:� vdi Xt?- y�tt{{ f, 'i'' y.�• J :� y ,�'`,��`r,^f�-�°4'[�(�,Y �r`�.', `�
�*- r�.,r �� �'�"� >.-i�'" � - 'st �� �-I. ram` ��1i... �,;.-� `� a � .P-a-�'��S„ .� ,�;,.,�c_ -•` '.rl
a �;� -. ➢ �. � � t.`r' ,ram }tl - '.�`: c .q_.
-
,� ...a,; ��'�'`` Yet ��-�' �'� � � �-� i' f�. %�•:;�',,,.or'n`�,, e L-1 S�s��a yq,; � „a,, � ^p [)' .� �•y
:r. ,}. fit�"' ��b = "'�' ^`r _ ,,�.��. �"�.:t• �"'° Y , �� r'�',� - i �d ,�+�-� ` :w. � r
r J ..-t f �7'i jam. § riJy�.`yG' h3-?•. � �r •�•,` - '`�'t�„a y� ht
�,/` is "r4';- - x,,,,4}n s - -f -��.-,fir`q��,'�,��°`T' � ".:s z✓� �''�a �� R k�' � � ��. ,,>' .
} - .;�:- g -. _.,ea.. 1. .i h/'-�-.- '% r` ;�f�.,,''` �. 2.•t�':n-`.. a r '"Y �.- y. C�:; {
�-r � "' Y� .� r J� Ff •' _ _. �. I. �� - � ,l.�f f��'' -,�- �- t�.�N� _ ��(�Y;'.,ti' �•ry�

r:1 '� �_,,' .1 s 1 A...v�€ +".L.r , l "r ,f -i ;� ti `.•�i r .7�� -t _ `-/N✓} y�_ '� ,.� .%�Ha �•S. rL �a ,\ ,�-.1 r .�_`,. s; sr
,r ._ ,.;. .. .,tom-,.�,' _• � ,.,.•, f ,.t , .,� r ' --. .. -.,. r-- r m 4 � u. As 5� �q`
kt
,�J
.., �.. v c`4 .. ;.\^�•�` yt� 1. Y\tir ,' ,. } !, `' .��j�}�'t/� '• ".�, "'�,. �4, ie7. ._�a"? .',R _
'S., ', '1-.'� '�/y r .., ,.:. �,o,.:'-1.' �. ... 7 y,_ ,s > +•`} �,, ./�fi- wt;I 1
y ~ '.iira �': (� �• 4�x+:u.� •�\1�i -��. „ _:.: .»--. ,¢.. •. _�. ,�, �. , ., , •i ,i_ '�;' � �_ •w 16+
It
.D .•- -,:. r %+' LT*, �,` 'Ar. . /
XIS
t'
s
l
r
•
a
..ice,: 4.f_ /r,<, � ) -;. , \ v}� .° � �— a- i ... t '.:•' - i� Y..q_�, _ fe tsA'":a'L r. x 3.•/'c
Y 7
r, 6
f ,
.a I y
Y
.. -.._ �=i,_ .zaCY i � ,, � - ..a j � -. ,_ ,d,;L't,\ '\ ,-. >? �� r. ._ .�" a•.,' �S �.- _ ��r' 1 ;�T�-' `:e�9 - �� �� 't1.
--` - � v �„t`•,° '_ r?, ,.-, , 'r . v �"r _ � ,q',�, t -- r4 ,:� _ •c, gC �� - :, �4.. ;? tf r.�,
_� .., d _�„ �•_.:' �r\..� .' n � \fit/��: __ � �. __ 3, �cr. - _. � _ - - ,���• r �'�.fit ..,F,.
:..r'4 .., . `.if' r4" -`�.y_-.. t, .o•- :r :. •�'':l ti\, ,r J: s .. " •,c: \°w ems,•" ,;r\; rid MIASMA:' --�
T7a•.
-. Vim.-., �< , �'oa_, ,i. � , ,: �;, .• - ..a. _.x w � �:�+'-=--_:- s._ >.% /w'- _� ,.. .,�,,,
� `�,.','.`.�� - J- i. L { y :fir• � -'�•� � t 4, ��f' �` � _ .� � j.,�
'i F'- tie-v+.,r"�.- ' - .p ',x,. r ._.,. V - .;�.i \ __ �� - - s/•�s -�-' r�. T.�'2 3
mow, j`'f.1• f �� y"�'-. "„�! �<: .r_.r _ -��J---- -� -�: _ ~b
e`
- �_ ` 9. 1. - \`.' : �.�� _ fr.. • :. _-,... �. ,ir ���_, �° E ,,� ..,, _ f � `�� \1 - .f max``, ,y.
i � -�c. - 1. .;� - cl:. t.r. .:.../I 5-N:.r.. a - :, � , -.•d r1. �. f r: - � ',. ,�,' q i',.,
p�
:. v_,:. -q�i.•y.. _r .. ,,J�_.:,. '.. \'✓ _ .' K-:',. .. '. - 3'- C I � �✓ ter.' "'t. ', _ i -7
t \ .x, _ . ✓ . != .'a}.I.,. _.,. ti-.�;.�' ...�p •'4 - - l !r "�'r `-�, -e..! 1 'tom '�.�_\ ��� ,..`v
c
s
>•,,. � �. -t_. -;.; , � ,,..;- _ ,. ,_�-,-rob < ., ;, ..�. a`• � 1+� -lrt'.
,- :. � 3 t .. _ r 4+..-.hA�:� .,_,. -. ,- , : ,. :,,.•`,x.� 3� a. . •-e`r.:. 't: �a•4. Y.Cv. �+`�'
- � .+l, w,.' - : 1.. "� "�" .:/Yrvs. �f ah. �• Jam.'. 'R
., rf
_ - e_ �'_r_':-. _y_•+ . .� r \ � , �;•,..s -. .,- ..- 4.�q i rl 4�r�, g --; 'asu- �` s, .�; 1 + .iR'.'r'� i f��� a\ < �•-.e.�
Qb
T
f-
d- •-, � ( .,-> ., � - ', � .a _ -„r� _'�& v,,_ r j .(.w _S.r x• }, (., fit
1 r• . � _,, / ,. c _; i ;. t- a 7'. •.. 1 � r '.- � 4•'' _ ``rm T'�..`_'a�-".F"r r,-�__ r;�� #L w :a y -��� -': +
!_ . Y � _- ,.ter � r r. „<,. 3 . ,,, ,.. �f k :. _ � -:i ti - `> '•f .„�< .s._.^.„:r
i: a 1 r _l i, � _ i ,i' e. I � Aa -.I � , •�. � r ice' .` ;-, 4�s,r r t, _ -
_ -- ' - ., ..,,-_r fit+a �, _ cf .. '. ' ' .. '°. - -.. '-., sFi ,'si x s-r' ,� .r.r �ti�`-p,.��: �•
-
J
s� .-,_ _„ T ,....sue_ n ,.. � � x � /. ,T sn•y.. .', 'n ems:`-'- •7°"-.� Y J�,4+a�.a. �� i�. "'J�" ..r,5��d.
"'t � it �,y.. -., '� t=`.- ,,: ,.�_ I .� �. '•'.,�.: r! �'- :.,. ; t _:--- - �°�'. '��%. -�-F .at-�'Yx��
. ly
'� 9° -,ry �/4 } 1 'o h:_ �''�, � � ��- )-, �"-" r` /-` • -�,,. -).-T^ i _ * �t ,air :/!
;\f I sr '.i'Yt , -�,a .+. 1\.E3� :31,�Y� .::-r F _ -- / !i .�J '. G _" .•• - � a�,/ a - l�..e
•
,
C S
ir•
SI 3' `6•_
`f7xa ,� wt�LLI. ,,. r. � M?, i: e9 _ ,�. ,�zv: ..� F :.�i� a :' �_ +s�J ' ;;, _- ,� - - •"-'"yam., a -
r•
�J

,
r
r�-. 1 t � �"_ - ,i^_�..i.�,r """�..�> ���� , ��'�• �ti� ,,-� �ti_vk4 ��1 � ` lk_ � r- �.e Y`Y_ \ +� \`.`. 7 `�• �. �, , ram` 9
A �. r� -' ; �,�,� i. -"gr - 1 '�� �• :o,� , {� ;��',• , '''��' �� 1, �1' _mac \ 11�r,� ,,�'�t!` "f,� r..
1 , -
`, � �.. t 4 � - '`;,a �'�`•� �.� `,�y�, �''%' � , J 7i � .a� - ` ',i/ .sot
e r
or
i_ err 1, �' ',�+ 1 - \�'/' .t" /V� ��j ,� � � �� f , _ �eL-r•- `- -
'� ' #'' � ' � ; � `��,�' �t,.. - 1 �"•-�.•_•�.�' 'Its `t �` ��'���1-is"S� ,%,�.r '}r _`'i o� � _,S� ^f _ i t
r{'_ )_ � � r ^"�- ' �• �`,`,r,�i .�!"�+r •�' '�"f..t/ 5�'��.♦♦'�,A �.. = /,,� l •`/ ter/a 1+ , ,�R, A �y�^ I\ / � ' - [ ',� •. ./+,,
e} 1 � � - .•.�..-a t' .�` .. i'P*4�%.:rf '1`� �����-. ll'�` �a }�.v .f r.. r,}��'f k� � ,
•.�% .w �'�- .as-!'_ `2�ta—t`' '�`J-.�' 's,� f, „i; 7,• _� - `,s I /r, �,�� ; �t'�s �r ,�" �, .l, 1 ` •= ^•- ^ '� , ,'yr �"='' -
->. �,� {. r � yt:« IT ,sue.C i• • \ -J' E(' r r / � J- 'ice•, a ✓r a ..`ills^•�, Y/s -#�,r �•o.o,e
p �
f i��# 1� .�,e-+i r � ��', � .��.�t�_ .%�� _ r/�t 7�(._�, ' L'�� ,�Ir r 4' ,91 r i�' if s�\'Y._ -G •4h ' .�h^�a {T'r,�.'� � ,+�i
,`�� ! � �`�`y�'�' � .��; `. �A /`)�,��-�'� ?•�•� fJ/r r f, w�YAi.�♦�-(�'1'r y i,.• ,sk ��} _ t K- ��,.� ti fOf C ` `'
1 •1! L � e� �" i�`\,�� �°'G%t=.i! ''�xh-. �' ,��: ! �'t,"/,,
l�•
kv
s 4 I t�. J '�t �"?7 y ''r 4, F_• �,: ''!-44�ayj t —! .
� -' .e � /�_ -.! `r'L .l +a :T' ,1 � .r /i t �j�. ''`' s ,� t �^�.'C �` r�J_t?•�-�`•�- -� 1 i •1^e -'
CA
.�tlir.� 4f•p# _ �-. pp t /' I 1 ` /�)`
. __'�� ^�� � t 'rl .� � � 4-" _ �"r, -d�Ai� �"�. � i� l � ` Y. /:{ � •r� ��fi+. ''-f< h, '� .. y
1-4
j-"�• "� _ ,�yf t _ ` . ' !„ {11)II, l ; +•': K
4
r 1.
f +
-�, , '�.- _ ":P��l f' +..� � f.�+1r �, i rl.� jy.� , r ♦ '!T 1 \ 'i`�•t-.�^ �. !r��.f.. �' ? }`•y 9.
',�;i ` •±Y'. !J i-k:.�J. �s=. /`f, �.. 11 -: -A" .:+,�;; -•s >✓', F\'t�r _ _ '^.�!� '\.. ..• ,i �L� ",,.`} ,4 •�^J -i
r ,
\J �
.,: :i `_ �..., t - � ��� 6 +`� ��-' �'•�. � �t??„r �•�1 c \ is•..�� y�� � �r � c.�t A, k' 1: �t.�r�♦�,r +� �`+.. � �_;�=`��`, '�'!��fi � �..�^s\4* 1�T. d� ... `.p:o, �
��� i+, \j + : .-1 . i� :s '�-i � / f�� � l \_ �i,` IrK �='a t;� �� sr 'T 1 •� ,.�,I ,,�,., .A ;0.�,i� .�,rb ;' "�
i� � t � � l" il', r-�� f�'; �s ,L y !:t ti 'F`�:�, '(`O•'� .�• f' '�. t` ��K`/- jC r..:.`t '�F��A�rfl��Sa�,'�,���„� ,..+� G � _
/any
•- ' '•� `' .. l� t � +.�L< �r J lrT � F r 4=�}.4 -y -zr _�/ �• m" ,, �,;. `'tea`'' �' `
3.
,
� t
!
.f' �, �,-. � - � �,•:,. "_'ice � - , �r
y
- • ` .AIL.

k—r., _ +_ .-•.-r.,l�-T _ = ,_ -- �'r-_ _ ^f -. �- i;r_ __' '-.__ ___,. --�-,r-r; gt _f Y X i� +, r ..L._ '. Y * - �1F
\i\ilk
,
,'V , .f � , , e e ,.p.L +mot _�_ $ 4 � _ a .R 1`S , •, I`, + ,`°`•�`=I
,a= _ •1 \M
' :t p;• `�, � s#,'. .. r x. . .:a - �•�� �#j. 3 i s`';1 ...,a ,♦ 1'` a,, ' 'fie 1
Oe
:FL •� 'F..rid .• , 'f �:,' �a '}j�'xr L ., 2. � .t { l A.�. , ' _ ��• v - � $• a�# �`• _ _
-
+ _
S,w4B:EA11. w4'k`d �' rl'%�1 • . +_ `'� r; . `
swa Al-" f sw7 A ;,
r q t �SW9'A1i'' 4dT•'s%/Nr /L{�A�2lPZ'Si=° '�+ }s
jA
r _
Extent of soil cracKin measured 3.4 feet
west.ofePZ5 and 14 fe �st
`
f
rr
.�.♦ ,�, s APT-3/� ING 1 �• .�• tx ,sia
. ,.
y ,
.
y _ .; ♦�
i .. , . ` r ��� Y f♦'6 t"� Sa4,y r �ti'��a� �.
. a 4
, .
PPS )
ox�mat
,
L '
k
# `
APT
s a
if
♦
ul
Hand:Auger/Piezometer
4 # Nw
(a i Inclinometer -
�SPT 2 S ;�- irport c rt -
_ PT 2fPZ-2 se ur fence , , ,,
- • - Y(AppfoXE7T�late) �� ' _1 s r Y, x - Will concfete fO-flte , t t a4 YF
A.
PP
II
♦ _ • • iy V: # '},•1 . �. a {tea ' t+ - _♦. _ a,
i
SURFACE WATER.SAMPLING
' k �` i- AM)INSTRUMENT WCATI'ONS
Fieldinvestigation - ♦ --conditions - J* '.a #• $ ,.1 " � -wl ! - ..� + s«
Asheville Regional Airport
• } GeosynteO' DUKE
4.'Surface water saffiple locations%Wre identified by NCDEQ and,, vs
5. -. ♦- •a I • •H. -• • I h• •- • -♦ti - .,tY: 1_Ria# S a'f a,•.
• 20becer6ber

\\ I
i\ � � �4�...�`; � - .t \.' ` cl' ,t"I� `�J, 'ltr i ',J� �b�f� i... t• s�,r
' .,-- . �� .:'�. ,, -. 'i .i F'^� �:.:: �•i l�r rl ' - -,:ply _ ��'r� l� �2s �`+'
• } �r ♦ r f O-. "�,#. � �'�/` ;`` T i i �t'' �•� r !„ ,r--w, - �.,'k:,.�•a•� - � 'C• -i+�` -.�K
l, � i ��y .1'Jul. • _' y 1� � �' l � rI �Y� y�`� to' .�J .,� \q`� '.
� `y$n 3jyr"/r''` � \ T tr ...,/ • �"� / _ , #1 'v'It w `V� ��t r 1-� 1 :.
-
�- _ � � .day 1 ..t '� =.."'--�•'1 � `{.�` L. � _ '/ 'i� '
f
• t 1
, .
i� ' ,I- r 1 a �-/`sx' x' h_s.. ., 4, . .,.•'tom` 1_ f ry frr� y, �%V^�,4�� 't � �� _ `\�`' ~��
_
,. . � k. r.✓C a-- lr�-•?"s' - t ' C!I L 1' r� �tY r, �.C,
.� r� ry` y,,•) ,` y7'' `f' /1i,s.1 4�.r. ,�i, �q y :L ,r. S, ,t� 1 '4� ;J� .� ''r .y... '�• +
#.n e ,� t .. , �. - .. ,i�h_r`,C ti:;f .f� _ S• � 's�(+J�,=_i ,,,,1: �l�r�:��r-.♦ y J - - •t'\
� M
..,Rvi t � a,J .`i o s .. . ,,� L. . y... ��' '�• i.�`-' _ �`5,�?���t b � .S" L' s ,,,,�. � s/ ~� s'� `"�F ,` r' e�
i a`. .�>)'. �. .� .+\` ''',J `',�� }•f\fit �t '`•-#-',ly,, `, irl t�� / i., s1�. a `t- i.- �, "•t�t I ��' I —.'.�: "_' /,
- •i
SN
��r/ t .. .,� /-•l ` �'��' � t tY'`` �,j.�4 f,��i, � �Y ' ''�. rr� �ry / I�i k �� �!�,�i pad �* .��' .t J�Jg +'fiJr 'J i � 't -
R. � � .r. � : _�`. � }} i 1 ,l`e•. •�A' �y r � rf`{f r+���.�, '€�ll F J+� q �j,�t-r"J..%.�p �'� 'J '1
J} � f - '` �3- �. . la• �.''` r..l. '€' r"� - ,�� .f'}. .`yl.y} •fir' 0.,, `''�
_ r'.,aj � ♦ - i ca �. .��, i F t.i, ��i "c � '9.�' � j l�~ A�Cr l ,�, �.1€,r�. '`.
> � • ,�"+'��� 1 ',++`,.,{}, t ,�.. `�. �a JfJ/�-''', �`•5\ rs..�i7 � � � w; #,� �.Y k S+ r „� �„f Ate' !'� f
�. i ♦x•''"7,,,,1-'Hyx _ .'ham /,t f G 4 "., � t� !i � ..�;. i/jy ,,µ ,
9 ,, - 1 t .,. !, '��`�' r� I , •} :r^• � � ,.✓1c2,f,j{ 113 ' ��J :��'`�t�.al � �i_ t
.r -t1la� J _ �� /t_ - .ai -�r �� 't. _f,,J t - '. �f.�` .�`.. x^ '.� -\�'}', i� '� '\.. it`>;.fY Y�_t }��y-� � t•
e. :...•fir �i '.'� .•� - r } ,-�}��y 1 ^-�'U+� %t,y i a,�'l�� H��r` � �� � f
!' •��. , � t \ I '^r .'v� € 't1•ttLr� �� n_ `" J� sY- !
! _ t �f ,
„
- z - / --,''� ,` J IV
/ >r S '!,+ �- •it' rC �, ,� t` .i�.` -a i} �•. f�
f
'k'4 1r`.�• y.� �5 :. �:�. i' `� �' ..e i
` \, 5 '-f •� .��r, .� ara;4' F -�' f � 1 ��} I� F R i.,_CI� �_i`5�-'� � ���,` r _ r,J���\�-'���-i��� t�:�i � -
'
.•{ -�;'^- {- I �. �." �''r 1` A „4 ,.{ ) /,//'% �� --�-�� f-..��.± f tip, -y -* \ `•si5 � �r.%j' r e.+r s,+„, s. "{-
7 � t .'�� _,.,.Y ��� _ --' -£-. - t t. "! (.=-: Lr � '/ F �'� .•r;3 )- � t�+, - a -,;` � .lt'`.. �-� 'i
F ✓ J7 • . .S �`� � fit. � _(� � ry !. �}� �a•;� •.t-i �' `'` c,, r � ;t � _ t �- 7�' I' -
n
IR
JA
41
�4 Y
:.` ,� .._.:,...' �1� .--�: Y ., �n� �1\��'{�sa t - � �i¢/:�;7`6 -` � t'.,a f--�`1:..__ L t� �•c{FS ti..�- �`/ `A ►•' .
-
� rJa� .�.��,_..��. .�� .� _, ;� �i.- w`�- _ '�. Jti' i:;, r 4•Aj '��/ �. ,� � � ti r7 r-91 '� ,!`�q�A`
w
r \-
- _ �.�y �,� �•��1,�, fir; f .,A � _ t�., ,,iw,�. ,.r���` �_.., •'i�r.'} '4- ��,^.�i!�w�a' ';�`. -. - rt'*� 1 1 _`�s�<'.:..,i r ,
t
,
r t- r e�, r �X ter'- r s•+ r ,`. _ ,� =� ��' r _! _
,<a
f • `
s ,
f
W.
„
w
S S •h� J
k li µ �f t •-�.v' '� _ `/ � � ,�� ` "i� "'`�+-. F�� ,r� f✓ \_ ,�i ti; � i >�� # ;•. �r
,y a
,
• .
x
r I
-
J�` ;-g rt ,:mG t i lit o�rY•-' � s`' vt" �'` •\ '�.t '
J - _ � wa� ♦ � -Stnn�•rt. .. f y J• �r� •,T !F +t. :{�3
a,y ,
" , • , — -
t
'� fir, t. • A. � �� � :�. i` i _. � ' - „ � Y ; a' �� �� .{ �; e
a.

r -
x _,I .. r.,`...�..ry . .� (-tti • r`.rC ;.JI.I.t�- vytr',.,• r.t' .t 1' r. _ t.a,: - - i
�rR.. - -. t- n ,.. ;: ..: : .h.4t �-vf.7 '!1'��r. .^ C}' �°4'r• � 1- ./�i 1� q4' 1�ti!�Fi'i\"�e.�.c,.y;ti! R�.�'r` '-r... iS v,r:_'�"!%,: r - Yre c i
.... , .: .. ,.:,. s * .. - :. J 1• 5,,. .-- ..�' a :z'-.c .:�'�- s k,r�.a'r_%i F^. Y 1 t, ,�!t E' >l•.'t �`e+_t'4•.. .3�, ,,' �(" i,f" ,,. .�Lr7 w'yi�t' �rp�,r
:....:. -'.- -.:.. . � .. .,a:� ._. .:e� .. . *u,... ._ -K;- „Y ;•'� + Y v .- I _ `1,'" .;-1`1t PS" .,�, ;rk � i i�.r,: - i`.'/? p " _•f -'•r i'
•3., +. . . .. ,. *.•, �,,,.. .. + r-, { .�. ..'..•,a.,: , } .F,L, u. �.. ,t ''„+y � .t.� .rr" e•.r�.i t - _ -_ �_' _�,
+;, , '., • 'ram',. �d-.. ;:'; +' , •\.•+.: -. r,R�,-_ .) ,�:{., f-p +' ,un .� A'3 �G '� Vic; - ,� -
- ._.; , .,•. ,,. Y "+.. a ♦ try \,,,,.J+. ,t. ct. +:°ll'+ `a,.'ti. 4 �• 1,- is ,i.,ii,g; a^, f
f • F ,. N .r F ✓.,, ". ..: .. Y♦f + .. Q,l .- K+ �t7,-.�.•`^ r h. x `i „: r�,1,. r„Y. -'[�':} �
' 1 „,.... s,, v. •,, �. ,.. . .�. �•. .r \ ..-a i � ' a r�,' 't' S'`'+ !�'\. ��• - t s•. fj,r. � r _ `T ,f•- �•'-, .3y
, , , • . .: .. " r `-, ,- ,• - •-' -� , � ., - n;;,f� - •1-:•� ./� r ;t' _ ,,\ ,t,t\ �+.�:•a F ` '� - --s a:31*s',.-2
ul • .♦., *.' ,.. •..•;. =.r. 4'. 5 r "h •-* .li.t '�j' 1 •E'4SG�,crr^� ` .1d .,r. ,1 aris''1 `• - \ Fes•'
• , -„_. ,. .r,: ., \..:�:'�-� �n,- �'1t�S. t���' �Y ,. •' :'t'`' � t-1 ,y-� ,�emu,, �t'.:r21� "» - 1�- -,r- •.aU�
} ,t � 4 s \ - ,i u \ 1 � tit,s}( t`` .a •`.\� � �,rr�t�tf f5c$is•'3 4:' 'r. ••r``t � `},�' f f���`.' _ 1
{ - r .'r yf `� ��c� 1' - .1 ':i'7� `l -it�( t,-• 3�a•-Vic. � w, ;Y��, _1 �f L,��� .
,f ' s t t :. /1"c•�r •>♦,:• Ir`�r1 rc'. �•• 3.;I•
- r5 + 2' a� ro.,. `�. �,` ,tt. t Lf="�F,'.�,:T``� ^•\ � .�- "iF?�'af i i*�-.�ie''-tl �F" - h� •,!<i `�t, ..�+.�c r•
�•` r' a 'y \ •� ,,;, 7`., '� t.. I,�:�^ �.�/, rr��. y,,t �y !,•;, �-.x.; _ ,ter. Y �__ '-'
, , r
- .
J .}.y. f }-' .:. s •, , -• ?i r;',..- ` --r�. .t.- ♦�•� \. T` '; ♦I +.�t t '•� ,n i;y'; y'.•hF.'.,,gE �, ,>k_ y.ry..
' , ! •�' - r'.' t 1.S,r ,1, t ..�• 1 a +✓. ••cr -i..'1., t .y ,�` � �. -
r ,
4fl ). r t f� . s. .� •v�f -l_ 5•f.` `. t:iti .f a i.. .,:r�'n� �a"'' �-, /.* 7' tt �'^i, •.�it\- r
i, \I// .fj. f f 1 J .1 Y _ r, y - 8`I,,` \ :"k-..,'\ ,=Y• tlX
�,�" , x.,.� :n't�- _ t�'.�,.Ti ,..,fie r'V S r �fi • :kf. �a:-w`" 3"
,,c "Irf yr / d f', , !l.<= , ... _ , , ,. ',:. -.:`V.7\��..yy; .�r• ,�'�� ."r 'c�.�.-s t.�. �t J;,\, ^�h 'h.- F �(/ � a,.. 1�.-. `.� Lam, ''if
., }`, ' t SA `" 1.tr ,r ,,o /�-,._.,_.lf•\, :k• 'f: „\'
'.,tjs'T` T >••.,.- ,f,,! z}"^ � �t .. ,�E. J� -^-�` \•- '?st ��� �� ,_T\`•. s� .�, �r w j,� �.s � . - - -�`ta.�
,+s+• e•'L Y -t w�� ..%✓f:,f �,;L• 'r ,x� -.Y` .1. ,T' r -.Ct'':i ..s ':}^"�+1',t V'.y,•'•.�, yr' s s\': y••�..
`' :..Fr f r »: r_ -,. '} -• _ 7 ?' fi '.k y „^i'� i#a1� i,.ttt�..` f` ':�:� yl,�L',+j., r .= _'f --•o' q'i..
r' ' ,w�• } .,.t< . -, ., r " � r= .., y ". .'. r. � +: t - `. �f� \E�,t� - l� � �}``.i# ? .?
c l l ,✓ i,s r ,r .l.> . ."..ten, _ 3 - G'•:�' r,i`,\.>... C �s �'r5 , .4'^ •.__ ' '�d' ,! *,. _
.. a••. ! •s +«, _ ._ '4 .. �!� „ 5,,._.t r _. , ,.•,..'s�r„sa � r.•^•: •k��a-,�;,. \ .#�`,.��..l ,4't'%\
'. 1_ €r. 1, ^•*'. s.. �'' .L s-. r. .-,., u_ �� _ '� =I`.3h' .♦-Cj,$ , .� ..r � �•s _ � %,t• - '•�3
I '
't
l' b
_
,t •" -' f.S ` , t+ ;`5 ° S '��� �' r.s ''i l :��. - \ /l �:: .rr'"-.t r ,a ae1', E,��-`-<^ .. �y -.;F ,�,�,. r. ,f,�� +
,
M
, - � g >. � �r' t 'k•aft>r .\. •�, ,1.:,` - _ �,' r� i,f .� c•. ,-r
Fla. 't -t, .'4 � ,iY:_� _ r y, 1 r f f _ rt��.,.-.�'r• ti, 1G�•._. t e 'J�'')-t'.� ,_r- ..:,�i
r•'/ � .� � �.f as J� '� �'. 4 'ti.R✓\K"a'te'A`icr^, .,s.+:* ,,,. C35 r f 4 �.. .'%rt- 1.� .F»-
t+� }I di s. - r,±Y. ` '$. - ati r �'-,+` �' �7- 'e r ':. i \ ,•rt +:f+!}_ 3 +'..Y" .",, :;k ? .r � �cT.,
-
r �
,e
i
:,, i r if ..,.. .. • .. '�'y a l.' ,. �'EI 1�r.,iT_: $ : �. l\. ,i`,��� `?`�r`s;':,; bra E'°�` r.'.if+,• , -:'-�r'r
�', �r.' '' r i / � � pr ,-.� f.'-R,„ .a- � - -.\ /) •/ 1~\ , , !«,:, ,..a:'K' �rc,F:,. .,,n r•{.- .- i'e �,,- ����1r
,t.t�• ,r t.,r� _- - ,6 >.NS ' of - - I�srr ..n":�,\ ,\'r,. '� •�- �t -;' ^k• --'�-"` `�, :.'`� -y�•, _ ,,,-gry 4
Y
t
'r+-JON. F;;��•• ,ems �:.: ry_z r c.aL•::"eF- A��� �r� =t:~ ��
, C•e\�i.7+ r 6' S ro- �' - •.-,k.3-F. 1-rz��
;t y,CC ,L, (' �� u�.a,\M., 'Sa 4`e�„`� it' ,rr�"��'� .....,» rr• *,. ''i, 411
} , ; °i,' - e k J� _ rS S*•-••S f iq; fl-� .-� ` //.+• l••�.✓#..Jr. >ti„ - ,?.?.n, ,.. .Z;,. _
"rM. ,.,.\:n 1 ti� � .;/ ':` ' i,`.c^�`• i .+, 5p y.�. *r ..?g .,,••
+� f 'f t +�` :� yy'b. r .. ���� �.�� J7 ,•�..-� .c`�� a�,Ya`^'C- �:t ��=' -'� -� ,r" ,. r.
.a �. .�: .i 1 `{'' X .a., �r-Zv � r I I ,,t,y �(,CQ'r 4.is p �5=,. r.� •f"2�,.. '�- ./ •, .��r�'��{ T'e •\ -••..��_�
,:� �d ,t S ,. ��• a, \ - il+. .;,:s �•,i '2S'✓••.-s 1 \. , ,! 4.,z1: .t'" ,y/, .'lq'' +^K _ -+. I'^'•s ",�
+
t n' .. , i ' •':,..� x':..-:r `,:�.!. �"...•. .>'~ '"' � ,. ,� :, "_•C, riy+, , �:. .,� �•� _,�.•.., w,`lii ,l L 1 I +�
-�
'r }' 4 4,l.t„.+.. lP ).-. i-: .. , ,�`r •a"4`.`�,. �e^�*,�; ,1" ;'�•1`! "�w.Y.'..- 'lt,--."r:-.., ISO�•• •'�-�is, •ilk_ M _ _
. >� •r-y. ,. ;'cG } sr - �.-'it. .x� �•-Gt- -•� - .+w _«i _ fi ','>-'4''=: '+f ! 3 r': _
4 1 f • ..,:,�7-N" ..t-_ r ,"_ " £t - '..v - .,..rf'�`.,. , _.r•.• k,.,•ys' t
W-
` ,t ! ,.'."y a'< is -Eg?� 9a. '4 �.,:�:-• ,``i �...�t.•f. r:-.. ,r.. � ..�aS�.. _ � .•� _�qr t _ f�`rs. - � �L:
- ., . 1 •� �. 4 � •. r �,_ _ -,�.,. ... t b - -Ica,' - �� t ,"'''�. 11 '. ��.�:�
•• ' ,r r ,, .. :.JF+'S:a.r..+ .f -s .kt, � �:- ,,Uc�, i., � ,� k... �. .{• w.- �..,' .,ems ,s
r
`�jj 1 r£ ,4 -1'�� ;.,'C.>:.:r _ :ram i' .t- �`^.,
,
ii v `-
• - f x ' r �• .p^%'. ,... .._syy ,. t". ,, r. '� _.�i, M <; 7'..�.�%„ W�.`r .-c.:• `„-" ;� `'ty t .:^ i ,;�..
1y�,�' �•^;l�a. �='•. Sr,.. - ii1 .t-..':;s,, t.. '7, r
r h Ir ' a .� rt,A R. r!•: �. 5=�.':(i'S� t-,'r. "Y :..h+,s. r Y-{="b'.•., .�i - w,+.•-rh 'x'.. '7•. )".' 7.:.-r. ., •rP,
� , � .. ..•fit :,a � ``3 _ -�:,: ,. �^•• ',>.
v 1 . ,'✓ ..• .. r.T!'y.t �:-•t�3+3'+f+°' ,x,,. ,-. ` �:aat-,r„�. .:'. _a: �:' _ .ram -- _, 31`sr= ^��'i t:'s ,,:
,J'r 'Ftl-,,fl. M_f.` - vy/. � `. .s a f,r _,}. � _L._S+„1 L`''¢'r� .:r-,.Xy _ c'�•, •,y ` +f;., f � ti'.* ��• _
/', 1 1' � .f'..' a° 1 `t "�-2[. f. ,_w„ � n♦ -s�'v, ,- �'•,. ,R' '^,"Tf' :�j`/.'.!s /rt r `-�`
y ! ! '`if�F.r z -rz'�. -}v ,_>;-:/: k� CY. } ',yra-,5�-`�"„ fs v!r �.-.• ����� ra ".",..,.'= _, K' �, -
1
y
,
.l'' _ r ' #±R,%f SG;:.%., � �.,� }�,c,. f, as'}a�a�',g,� ':a_v �a:. .,-e. - `56' '.�.•�, _:� iti. 2 �Lr����' i:�i'+ - -C't"•r,3,
' ^r '%',� _--•-„�_�--.�r�s.- .X,y;,,4��f3i��'i' ..: � "'� ,.. - �a ,l�`' ''i t'S"' ";':���s,.�»,,�• a. '�1r••r� t ��•/''� - ''., ,,t,; f�'•1+
t •, �: .+,T -r..'r.Y. a p. ly -.�y-i0';.-�, ` g �'>,'� xr- -.:-�'-,.,.�,�rY.?�" y�� z��� �. €' _ ',4':• „-
•ice
t , _1 '?� i, ,;. ' -- ,...,- ;`r a T ,..°`'� -r',- ; ,, Ste'` ;,ct.' �rr3' �,�. 3t`,arr• ,c'y w„e.. 'a-�-
f} - .. � .� r: -wea ,,,. �,, ,frki,,S,.,.^,*.e� -.`Ti' '•'?�' �xY ;vL�y, f,.',•,ye-'" Jk,+r
' .-•._ � .. t .�3gr1;-1^T�'sf_ z �l �; a' ,:, �s. T,22 . = �, ff,,;;,�`� r.. :4•`3+'�Y'��4 sf`�;,'az- =M .��.t�,s•+}; �
- ♦ .. ^.,'� � . _fiq,' ...� ., � �\t'�'.���\a�`j�V'L f, _ r=L." .may �iT'i �-.�•a'- 'F:r t.,'"J "'di' '+tit �
"Fkz�t'+fOro
rd' {.7 � ate,' t,, \ <' 'Tt \ 63- � .ct" r•}�, ��,t� 1� T •r• - y. , ,..�
(. � .� � ,,.a�.'! r'f- '`.'r� �. • � ,.� b i"�n,� - � f � r - Y,��ll�` - , ram{ , � • t '*
'•.,• >� S3�� _� `_fA.rF y _ ��y� .,,^ '�. r- _ai,,s_ `,ti�+;�; •? t'h- *3`�+`' �",� •� -�� •Y\�
f. ys iat t �-�- dt' ;,tr ,�" .-,r-j'=-'� <-•.y°� - _ a,Y:�"� '�•f`ia.?5. '�q. a:;�`�.'-�r "M'�'�.„� ys.�•¢�* }.t=�� I;- •3'+k` - '"r
77 a
, ,! ,� 'f`7� r} ,: ,.� tlh .,'...'. ,; �:\ ♦ 't ( �,, •-: � 4' `_`7.,�'e,;r�' / �9h?• �'.°-.., V,. N '1 d��',y�.A rr w. �_ye r �,
p .. v .r. t ,1• - 'S i '^4 / p, .,'Y i•�-`k - � - >1y. ,.n�.�f,&'�•' r v '+ �c�- '� ';tl' � - *' �'
'tl r r :r - ry-, l` f. ,.•,7: � �'}-"', _ s �' a�i �r �� anti-}
, .a,
' 6 � ,. ,, �:' .,•":• � ' •' 4+ .n� _ ?. t„-• s, .,s$" t:.}:•. 'T' �'�� q- 444• \ � K�r,,�`'•�' '•_ T•P � ,e-*t;
`'' :. r'{ -y:^St� t- S :i1- .=.t' >*•, _s,..k.... L. `'• Tr fit wK11
��/ r?'• .^z"- ,f nt;". •� ;T' ..� "aN. �c t"2S�A�� 4�ro. 'y+�1 �..'a.�;.
"��a
1 y. T •X 1 // t , •'i� i 'S�,„ ;ser.0...� mow: .� ,t`; 5 11f• s •�7.1
n i FFs. .y +��_ 'j•� ,� 1G ,f {: .G.� .�'i .:,5 t•c'' .w• +
1 t k....
a ,
4 •
f, .1, .•:o; T .,,, L• T'+tF-�, Y r-,: `�" ? n.C• r'M.-"-,t 4 �•:."-. .s. ?'a�,'�' �le�\.-
, y J ,Is yS } '1.s •. } ,� � : 'SL. ,.T x{i .:1htP. °!n6 :
//// ': ,fa, ..� � ,. ..f� ♦ ,.'1t , �a `A, f�. r{,..-,! - _i.n• ?�
i•n ,, ,)' 'a`g`a j °V /'- 3` tt•' Sf., L :v. 'T' '•,r+. „'o:,. + -
a . •,� ,..• , r. ,:..- a .. r ,.... i tg ,"'�
} a,ar+,.f, r,i. .r _ - _•-... t , �+�.,`A).,•�' - ..^a.g.• _ .. ^. ='r 1ti,-r ,i. .:„t.�-�; »�iN"�� 'ram. t• �s - :-�• ,u.Ca'-� ,-..
,
l •g
, , ' r\.J•rr r ,«.. A T .• + a , Y•. •, .•g. '."- ,i �,�. r. {44„�M fi+r '�'
,. yi f +. tfe ,fl• f ff l t '.+\'a* /')r
! r>! . .lSr.•. a� - - > >;.• �,,. t. f :a" �.. !fir- a
i1` ••f ,f' 'aJ- , •'Ii.sr. r, '6 ej ''� - �s�.�-� s� s>',�:^•. .���k�-u��• ��,. m� .:a. 't�� i �Y•q-� •_ii-� - _ -
y .
•:f .1g��`.f': , /' r tt •'!'�., - f4`, 74.. -��r - .,. rSP+Y..:a.'hj.j,'r•�, .' S wC?,, r `��
Tr'. :•/t" •.:+�,"< •�'•x. '-`a >r.;. r-•ti`, • ..:,-
f .I'r. ,• ,/ 'f �-.rd r�..},Y�' �•&� `t� ,`� .�':�,. ,�'-.. .,`� -�. +,d•,r`:>kt•�31•'?a tH`L � ♦ '4e, � �;,;:
t' t'� ``i�i-c,!�4'` � . 'I Ir^ .c•'j.�a ,,,�, •F .+` � J-I+•_�^�, 1Y y,. ,`ti. 1. ..,r.. •.yt.S��• •n. ,'i, ti :j� �'.•Cj', c
.1't f 1`# 9• �. �r: r.v t 4• 7 „a. ;{.} ,1Mt+Y-rl �,';s` - y`.7 t? r.. ,.',•..'Yti�,
v,tl . ^ir '. _ ''k -.\., t _^?°.'t!"d :\fit ,}iir, 'r''ti: i C N`4-.:r t.. ,.,- .' f,TiF:• bn h 'a-
' �, j' $ t- �4Y+, - .S- l 'y, ,.r '�; iSr:.t,�.•n- .,.'7r .♦.. �•- S+C
t�\!. !1� •1 '� .+7` .r,� 7a1�� s J,N. .5.. 1 :ti'-ar:t1w� - - :)..:r.:.k'''y""'•':� y� ';'l��t '$, `{,•...,a `i�, _ ,y"'".'
- ` `'r•-t .f. a• \i` '^i"to •T,.e •v - i':i'
�p l
'!�. �. �f,f :�. ,•�` .,- `'ts•-,'Cti` �. .-�,,,.. c • r aS rL3 ,'.� .t Slay"' 1 ,..j.•r�t.,._yu�, C. .. .,,yi;-.a �1'FS �-. j.
y
•t ,tc t J�-f/I:.�''}- /" S•- :`41' `F `,r •£ � r t _ '•'�rr- �Y ^ ?»rtii f ,a-T a�.c'.1:� '4+4�• �` l: *••,: R -
Irry`rp 1' �l , I%' atr`,,,, �,.•l' ,Y,i .•v�'+�.V ,r. �. r:.4 '' � ts!:r,.-•A�f` �`S.�w •.?5:�. � \- K \•fie.`, .7
r >a• f.
.
l ..1fr / ,;; f t✓ e. �?� S�'r` mi�, t t s: 5i'}s ��`r �g� r ,.rts' 9 _ y� { t:.b: &, k;t jc cTi3
.rl0 ,/ _ , ., �,t '�' •fit •pt•'.%`r;,, s,, �. �.a .b-w,i:. 't7- u ;'x r ''�•.t _ 1 '��•'�•R`l+r� „5?�_ i•,i'' �• -..j :r ��'J'~�`. '�• +�
?�, scY ,fir. ,�, _ r . fr t•:t 'f � ` n fix, , Tr „ ; a"N a - „ ..`
_.�s,: •,�f.�i,,,t ,:ttt

Laverty, Brett
From: Toepfer, John R <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 4:42 PM
To: Laverty, Brett
Cc: Sullivan, Ed M; Czop, Ryan; Pruett, Jeremy J.; Hill, Tim S.; Nordgren, Scott R.; Pickett, Matt;
Williams, Teresa Lynne; Woodward, Tina; Walls, Jason A; Kafka, Michael T.; Hanchey,
Matthew F.; McIntire, Mark D; Culbert, Erin; McNash, James-geosyntec; Michael A. Reisman
([e-mail]); John Coon [e-mail]); Damasceno, Victor-Geosyntec
Subject: [External] September 2018 Surveying Results-Asheville Airport Area I
Attachments: Airport Area 1 Piezometers and Survey Data (10-8-2018).xlsx; ARA_Area_1_Ksat_Eval.pdf;
ARA Area_1_GCL_Performance_Eval.pdf
u external email. Do not click links or open attachments unless ver#ied Send al'I suspicious email as an attachment to
Brett- Below and attached is the information from the September 2018 survey at Asheville Airport Area along with
Geosyntec's observation (this continues from the August surveying results submitted to you on August 28, 2018):
Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec) received on September 28, 2018 the surveying results collected by McKim &Creed
on September 10, 2018 for the ARA Area 1 slope pin monitoring system (Transects A through N).
For Transects A through J, Geosyntec compared the data against the baseline survey collected October 4, 2017 and
computed the relative movement. For Transects K through N, Geosyntec compared the data against the baseline survey
collected November 15, 2017.
As described previously and provided in the 90-day report, starting with December 12, 2017 survey data, computations
were updated to present the direction of displacement in the lateral (xy) direction as an angle (°). In addition,the
magnitude of displacement is calculated for both the lateral direction and elevation to better distinguish between
possible slope movements and subsidence, respectively. Per corrective action item 7(a) and 7(b) in NCDEQ's Review of
the 90-Day Report Submittal and Required Interim Measures Letter, dated April 30, 2018, Geosyntec revised the slope
pin movement reporting tolerance to 0.2-ft for recently collected data.
Geosyntec's observations are as follows:
• Four slope pins (H2, H3,J1, and J2)were calculated to have displaced above the survey tolerance (0.2 ft/2.4
in.), in the lateral direction relative to the baseline survey.
• Four slope pins (A8, B8, F8,and H3) were calculated to have displaced above the survey tolerance (0.2 ft/2.4
in.) in elevation relative to the baseline survey.
Based on this information,the slope does not appear to have significantly displaced since the baseline survey
events. Note slope pins J1 and J2 were calculated potential displacements that exceed a tolerance consistently through
the slope monitoring program, but do not appear to have moved further. Signs of deformation or moisture at slope pins
J1 and J2 were not identified during the September 10,2018 site visit by Geosyntec.
Geosyntec inspected the area adjacent to slope pins H1 through H3 with Duke Energy and NCDEQ on September 10,
2018 during the slope monitoring event. Geosyntec delineated the affected wet area and directed McKim and Creed to
survey the wet area limits,which will be shown within the Q3 Quarterly Slope Monitoring Report.
1

I alto attached two letter reports pi:- ,-red by Geosyntec. One letter report is c.,. c.je Area 1 saturated hydraulic
conductivity evaluation while the other letter report is on the Area I GCL performance evaluation. Please let me know of
questions regarding the attached information. thanks
John R. Toepfer, P.E.
Duke Energy
Lead Engineer
410 S. Wilmington Street/NC15
Raleigh, NC 27601
919-546-7863 phone
919-632-3714 cell
919-546-3669 fax
2

Laverty, Brett
From: Pickett, Matt<[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 2:52 PM
To: Laverty, Brett; Hill, Tim S.; Toepfer, John R; John Coon
Cc: Nordgren, Scott R.; McNash, James-geosyntec
Subject: [External]ARA Area 1 Status
� Externa email. Do not cl"ck links or open attachments un-less erified end a I suspicious email as an attachment to
Brett,
I checked Area 1 today and the area was in good shape with no exposed ash or further evidence of sloughing or
cracking. The scarp area with the buttress looks as it did yesterday with no further indication of movement and I did
not see any further crack development above the rip rap in the slope. The extended rip rap repair was in good shape
and holding well.
There was very minor amount of sediment in the rip rap apron at the bottom of the slope drain, but other than that,the
top of the area has held up well. The leak in the slope drain pipe at the top of the fill has been repaired.
Matt Pickett, P.E.
Lead Engineer- Duke Energy
Asheville and Cliffside CCP System Owner
200 CP&L Drive
Arden, NC 28704
AVL—828.650.7128
CELL—828.216.1398
i

Laverty, Brett
From: King, Melissa
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 1:55 PM
To: Laverty, Brett
Cc: Aiken, Stan E; Davidson, Landon; Riddle, Shawna
Subject: RE: Asheville Airport Area 1 Photos
Brett
Thank you so much for letting us know what you saw at the site. Shawna is the inspector-she has added it to her list
and will schedule an inspection. Thanks again
Melissa
ESSE QUAM VIDERI
Melissa J. King, PE - [e-mail]
North Carolina Dept. of Environmental Quality
Asheville Regional Office
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources - Land Quality
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Notice: E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina
Public Records Law and therefore may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Laverty, Brett
Sent:Thursday, October 11, 2018 11:33 AM
To: King, Melissa<[e-mail]>
Cc:Aiken, Stan E<[e-mail]>; Davidson, Landon<[e-mail]>
Subject:Asheville Airport Area 1 Photos
Melissa,
I was out at the site last night dealing with slope movement issues. I also observed conditions that might be a violation
of their(Duke Energy/Airport) E &S permit. I have no doubt this site is bleeding sediment and generating high turbidity
this morning.Just wanted to make you aware.
Brett Laverty
Brett Laverty
Hydrogeologist-Asheville Regional Office
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
828 296 4500 office
email: brett.lavertyCaD_ncdenr.gov
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778
1

Laverty, Brett
From: Laverty, Brett
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 10:45 AM
To: Davidson, Landon ([e-mail])
Subject: Asheville Airport Area 1 Site Conditions
Attachments: Asheville Airport Area 1 Site Inspection Photos October 10 2018.pdf; Asheville Airport Area 1
Observations October 10 2018.pdf
Landon,
I wanted to provide an update on the observations made during my site inspection last night at the Asheville Airport
Area 1 CCR structural fill.
As you are aware,we notified Duke Energy last month that saturation at the toe of slope was increasing and
recommended a temporary patch to help buttress the slope,of which a portion had failed in September 2017.The
contractors were on site this week expanding the existing rip rap patch and installing a temporary drainage swale and
slope drain to help divert runoff away from the already weakened slope (See attached photos).The rip rap patch at the
toe of the slope is now some 200 feet long and extends from geopins 131/132 to 11/12 (see attached map and photos).
I received a call from Duke Energy yesterday afternoon that the September 2017 slump area (see attached map) had
reactivated on Tuesday night and dropped approximately 18 inches,which is on top of the 12 inches of movement
observed in September 2017.The Duke Energy inspector Matt Pickett said no coal ash was released but coal ash is very
close to the surface (less than 2 ft) in this area. I was not able to observe the slump area because of the placement of
new rip rap. Duke Energy contacted Geosyntec who advised constructing an additional buttress wedge at the base of the
slump (see photos)to provide additional slope support. Last night I observed soil cracking in the soil cap above the
slump/patch and a significant amount of flowing seepage water from the reactivated slump area. I also observed soil
cracking below the access road that the contractor is using for their heavy equipment(i.e. dump trucks).
Matt Pickett will be conducting multiple inspections during the hurricane today. I advised him to call me immediately if
there is any indications of additional slope movement and evidence of impending failure. I also contacted DEMLR about
the earthen swale,which is likely producing prodigious amounts of turbidity today.
Brett
Brett Laverty
Hydrogeologist—Asheville Regional Office
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
828 296 4500 office
email: brett.lave rty(o-)-n cde n r.gov
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778
ruwal
Nothing Cornpares,,,
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
1

From: Laverty, Brett
Sent: Monday,October 08, 2018 9:58 AM
To: 'Lew Bleiweis'<[e-mail]>; 'Toepfer,John R'<[e-mail]>
Cc: Davidson, Landon ([e-mail])<[e-mail]>; Risgaard,Jon
<[e-mail]>;Zimmerman,Jay<[e-mail]>; Wooten, Rick<[e-mail]>;
'Pickett, Matt' <[e-mail]>; 'McNash,James-geosyntec' <[e-mail]>; 'Nordgren,
Scott R.'<[e-mail]>; 'Michael A. Reisman'<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE:Asheville Airport Area 1 Site Conditions
Lew and John,
With the potential of heavy rainfall this week associated with Tropical Storm Michael, can you notify me as soon as the
east cell slope rip rap patch has been completed?
Brett Laverty
Brett Laverty
Hydrogeologist—Asheville Regional Office
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
828 296 4500 office
email: brett.lave rty(Dncdenr.gov
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778
�INotl`ing Cornpares,
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Laverty, Brett
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 11:03 AM
To: 'Lew Bleiweis'<[e-mail]>; 'Toepfer,John R' <[e-mail]>
Cc: Davidson, Landon ([e-mail])<[e-mail]>; Risgaard,Jon
<[e-mail]>;Zimmerman,Jay<[e-mail]>; Wooten, Rick<[e-mail]>;
'Pickett, Matt'<[e-mail]>; 'McNash,James-geosyntec' <[e-mail]>; 'Nordgren,
Scott R.'<[e-mail]>; 'Michael A. Reisman'<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE:Asheville Airport Area 1 Site Conditions
Lew and John,
The Division conducted a site inspection yesterday at the Area 1 structural fill.The attached site map shows the extent
of saturated soils at the toe of the east cell slope exhibiting pumping during my September 10 inspection. In this
instance, pumping refers to oversaturated conditions where the soil moves as a wave with just foot pressure (see
attached video).This oversaturated condition on September 10 was located approximately 20 feet east of the existing
2

rip rap patch at the toe of the east ...dope. During yesterday's inspection,this oversaturated condition appears to
have expanded by 20—30 feet in the last few weeks and is moving to the east parallel to the toe of the slope.
While in the field, I had a short conference call with engineers Matt Pickett(Duke Energy) and James McNash
(Geosyntec). Mr. McNash felt confident that the global stability of the structural fill remains above a Factor of Safety of
1.5 and the observed saturated conditions are likely limited to the shallow soil cover. It is my understanding that this
saturated area is being buttressed with filter fabric,sand, and rip rap by contactor Crisp and Crisp as we speak.
There is no additional action required at this time. I just wanted to make you both aware of this dynamic site condition.
Let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns.
Brett Laverty
Brett Laverty
Hydrogeologist—Asheville Regional Office
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
828 296 4500 office
email: brett.lave rty(a)-ncdenr.gov
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Laverty, Brett
Sent:Tuesday,September 11, 2018 10:33 AM
To: 'Lew Bleiweis' <[e-mail]>;Toepfer,John R<[e-mail]>
Cc: Davidson, Landon ([e-mail])<[e-mail]>; Risgaard,Jon
<[e-mail]>; Zimmerman,Jay<[e-mail]>; Wooten, Rick<[e-mail]>;
'Pickett, Matt' <Matt.Picl<[e-mail]>; McNash,James-geosyntec<[e-mail]>; Nordgren,
Scott R. <[e-mail]>; 'Michael A. Reisman'<[e-mail]>
Subject:Asheville Airport Area 1 Site Conditions
Lew and John,
On the last two site inspections (August 10 and September 10),the Division has observed conditions of concern on the
slope of Area 1.The area of concern is located immediately east of the existing temporary rip-rap patch (see attached).
This roughly 1,000 square foot area has been perpetually wet since September 2017 but the level of saturation has
increased over the last month.There also appears to be some slope movement based on observed soil cracking and the
latest geopin survey indicating lateral movement greater than 0.2 feet at H2 and H3 and vertical movement greater than
0.2 feet at H3.
3

The Division is recommending that temporary rip-rap patch be extended to stapilize this saturated area as soon as
possible. I relayed my concerns to James McNash, Matt Pickett, and Scott Nordgren while on-site yesterday. Please
provide a response to the Regional Office.
Brett Laverty
Brett Laverty
Hydrogeologist—Asheville Regional Office
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
828 296 4500 office
email: brett.lavertyCaDncdenr.gov
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778
''"Nothin Compares--_,_
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
4

tC`:K-ri a '�'N , i St• �� -4�..' - � �,an _ - - - _ - --
mot« ♦ �
se
�,y„ a•,,�ti '1. ,•,,,wpyzk'"`+w"'�5_ -�'so ry - ._ `
,
1,0
r `
� -4•„33`tY3,ti... � \ � _..•a,'„ca .y rn.�v+c-az... fir},.-nz"„ ♦ -. _ .- _..- .,,,� a- -.-
,
Temp°oray�swale-beingconst cted=on crown of thetAr-ea�l-structu`ralfll
;�' f�4, c

-� !�•v� "` ,•• yam,.., •,"
'- r _
el
c
r
n•�y.yh'�.
-�' r. + wax �;��lr? 'd'�.��` •�. ,' .. '.{ r 1� � i _'
in Areal structur�a,l fill ,

V
� Ij•3f5 .�.t ��✓s -a
Ali
WRV 0,
- :.,` - �^`�.,.. _ � �P Tait��11 "�\ll� �"��rr-�`�►'+9�+�` ` �'` �• --"'�..
;.v ,_ - .�:.�, r�3t. -� �' �,.., �- ,,,ems-�`' :s�*�•_
b' '�'' '� :v, -- '` �" � .w�"'ems �✓. .•i'�.:,.r•_.. �y ,t�a`,`�� - -� ,t
call
INN A
.K;_ -.r'^s f I yL y. , �t�.s„,dar_,� :'� � s„�,y.. }�*wl�. .-,�,i�&y ��.,•p�,� �„ `NS
' _�. '� rr, `� _r - - ` r � �-..s ~ 1*- Si''r.� Z �-_:.:� � �'� r�•-�*'g+i*�','•:��.';,��••�/'''' `�4 �i � `.i.:�,,�-.=:,M
.� •�� � t 4 � f t +G �• �YA r�
_
r -
�dr ' .IVew rips crap pa, ch and'bu tress at Area-1 structural fi-II_

Th Rr Ryon ' �► 1 ^A
50
.W � ..•. ��4� ""`� �� o-PA. �c`�' �.-. -,+�r�� �R �"�'._ �•—~�!`� tee.
t4 ���yr "'i -%yy''�� w. � rs,, t ��,1'� ��•q,'�5� � - _ u 4`-T _ -' -t� �. = •� `"T •z:
-�;P a .� :..: .,t', ro a � - Qf. ��- �"�.a 1 '" *��q�� - .e 'r'. ��y.-'��c!S$'t _ •4 4
A^ aa.
`���%, "
_40— 11 i7` y n,i g
�kl `�. tee
sup" AS►.i��y� ' "}yj�R�1j�R,,� y •b ya. �F�? �S eyXy "�1�����r a .
't:�� � �u^i'�1�4. �Ji\i. ��'�P" '.nfT�.�/p..� �Jt.•'S�..'.�,i.- �' � a�^v.'S\ �:.'.`+a'- _ y. ���7�.
-•y � :_�N ew. A..."' .: _ ....te'�alt �`' r•�.�c..+k+-�:Rz+...��.�t�>1 �-tccr uaso slo ,a . a ess s butt � m \�'�'' �`.��`y Ga'valA tflIr Y•I^.II_A:. M
�I�J63

.�w
I
cj
k'
;.' ''sue wk• '.+ 4 .•" ,�,.,1.. ',� •,a '�y -,. R
� Mom'_ �'� `�� • �'� � *, ..�;.`� �-' t` ` ����` � � �
AL
� "� � �t�� 21
- {'►tea ,b g^�
� ���•:ff�' ��� 1_ � �Y �, .� Gt,-nn of �+Y� �i _ �eee���„���"w, '�ill..�w r:X-',
,W`3
Ow
li wMign",
,i. 'W her ent I v mom.
Netwbut � e-ss4 oc ated .Tt ec s ope o Q: I ��S
5.CCxl

16 iv
+ , 4
OEM,
'� 1 @1 - 4"f ,J P " '`r7 t /� (3 �, „E mot- "r,.rf � •!: �^1' .+�'�.
Wo
ki •�R dqt� is -+/ rtI ��vS:l, ry�v �al,gzS} ,�„",:fi. �Sf�"� �'f �'�,:�- _ '� •'ESI
a *`J,� .,� .•��, ; 'rt I J � Y t1liiy, /fyj,l Y'� �� ,�' -_ $j � �.
' l �
$d � d� PC�#, '+�S tl•. lr;� �'ra. �� .��-r'1R� � + �, I � «�-L `�ti K �R
iK•4 i . 'a',ZA' +. r( 1J
e 3 7 2%1yd; •C �qt }-
{sj,'S- M:
�" ,�, ~ !� 1��L?""r s "_� ." ,� '�+'•�.. , ,
5+t ��.� •:• ,((Ji '' ,rt} { '' !`-{�.y�1.` r� tu Gl r,f ➢"t'.1ry'�.��Y� f q'w ;:- r l 'J' -°`-_*i ,cam _
i 4
a'6r, s i xS'} FddY�7 Pvs 4j tom: o r .tT 7f`...,J •97 ✓j' \.i`!=.-'.' 4 .. :.
� ..y .t alV\�" �'i !r♦-+y 7f' may. ,� �$
v.!(� y; •":. J �'�'. tr s� \�F(¢t �7R�.,.,'. > +�Y' i :a- �T��e+, d���a•,h��aa 1. d�r�� ,'
G. � -5i, y I.'4 r �~ j,eA����"��``yS'p ;'i`��• � 'S� i If�l "�.�J 9 °�1,y� �.+�..
F' -��F rzr } � ry �
+•,"3' I�lq�����* � {�'�� .t w i .!�' ;— 3 � _ ( ��,:�.� �,,�� 'i�% .'.r yd ti.�,t��r�.�� RFa t/, 4r Q�.
uv �.
r tr HY
sly I t�5 tr Y `l r? � "i�t ,' o �J
�`rY r � � r'y, �r� •.tur ��` .;, X r S�lr ,e'tr �+'�t -•^��ty}
.yr j' `M *• N 'x 1 •f, ''� g'''g 'J 1 '"�
,> .� rS^ '- � T�° t t' a E1` d +'` •._ ,-,,,. •'�j'a.. -. '\ ,�`.,
I- -.:. -"l,;.c'+4 ` ♦� ^�+a .c`.��5 JJ' ,� �1� F.4 t}•�tJr':q' e. � 1. .t. I _ :J.i
/i"' � �'f sd �' x/. .'+i7n. /� t t1rti' '��, ,)W �x Aa,�!��t, !-., lw g v�..yi�•.
P� �

J E ? �'SI�
m D y .Curl
�It
Y:,
Rap : tent of so p g n lq,�
Ex ill ttmpin n Sf18f
1A,p•Prot fite e9ent;
r r IMoistarea"lno '
r
of�nPSapbuttresst Z 1 1 • I' 1
�. ,_ - �. � � I�`flow ob-serve
-�_
F+ k tt • �Seep'first M,rSlump;Reactivated •
Observed • Lnoted in 20�1 , ,� 1 {n `
1 1 1 M la 4 s "� i� jySlope �J_ 1
a ,rt `..° • .. ,\'. yV �' .. 4 aH1 r � � ,. s ;4 ♦ s►
• •.. � ;- Yp�,t .\ ,�� -w1 1 ,0�r may§ t•� 1 � '
°
p'r'oxlmatewetarea4'
, r r r
•' firsrt•,noteii Invi20a�.�� ��'• .`a.sr,e'`�','. `t - �1 3� ��.
v-
• A�
03• Pi"
�� 4��s • �;. ;,
us
,
U
r
Irk.as* - 154
(G1� 1 f6x 5 s
,
/i .: BS ,e 7 c D6 L1 a. CP�31 �e v
l�Groundwateraseep � ss E� �� , _ ,
ti•
* r x' A6 �C7 • •;FB• 1g t I
rB7) '�` tDB� - � \ =,:.5,
a
A7 i. W. I
a
3_ C
_
Swale and Slope Drain Installed
o ,
Week • 1 1
p
� � F •, .�;� � N� •
h2'L2 t
• �, .� '�.. -. IY' , e o .w MR, ,
n
v(_- , • a ' CP 2 NE L..• ;, ,.,KS ' - - • Airport seCUf-Ity fence `' ,
s } c s 60 diarn ter R�� t with concrete TooteSlough
06
r 'j
• ,: � ter/* ,w`� / �,� r �.•g6 �° , ; _ ��F ,,t,� . A � • •�,. „t � .
_Control P
A17-l: L•L7" K7�, + � t sU � � _,gFtz*.� � '� • ° • s
a 1•- ' a a• 11
Temporary s • • 4
,
<u -� IN
7.5 1 -
' 1 _
et
Notes: IM
r.
' " 41
Y y
•• .5 w • 1
• 1 • • ! E. • o •-
t 41
r- . - -r • • r• 1 - •.- r • r _ _Regional
Vtx Mhinalle,North Carolina
Field3. f•.1• • it were - -, • ••. I *'�. r `, s 'Y. .�,. - • a,: �!•• `i En
OWL
7 DUKE
can
.• j 514

Laverty;-Brett
From: Davidson, Landon
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 8:58 PM
To: Zimmerman, Jay; Risgaard, Jon
Cc: Laverty, Brett; Price, Zan (George); Gregson, Jim
Subject: Re: Asheville Airport structural fill
Late afternoon today we were able to verify that CCRs remain contained in the structure at area 1.The additional
stabilization patch has been installed along with buttressing at a portion of the slope toe.We will be in touch with Duke
and,airport staff over the next few days monitoring the situation as well as being available to field verify reports as
needed
Thanks
G. Landon Davidson, P.G.
Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Operations Section
Asheville Regional.Office
From:Zimmerman,Jay<[e-mail]>
Sent:Wednesday, October 10, 2018 7:38 PM
To: Davidson, Landon; Risgaard,Jon
Cc: Laverty, Brett; Price, Zan (George);Gregson,Jim
Subject: Re:Asheville Airport structural fill
Thanks Landon. Let us know what you find out. I've looped in Jim so he will be aware. I will be out of the office beginning
tomorrow at 12 through the week,and I understand Jon will be out beginning tomorrow at 2'. Not sure if he can be
reached but I will likely have lost cell coverage.
From: Davidson, Landon
Sent:Wednesday,October 10,2018 4:03:24 PM
To:Zimmerman,Jay; Risgaard,Jon
Cc: Laverty, Brett; Price,Zan (George)
Subject:Asheville Airport structural fill
Jay/Jon,
John Toepfer with Duke Energy called to report noticeable displacement at the temporary.stabilization patch located on
the north slope of Area 1,Asheville Airport CCR fill site. Recall that yesterday Duke Energy staff were to complete a
second temporary stabilization patch of an area DWR had.observed and noted on October 5th (see 10/9/2018 email from
Matt Pickett).The reported displacement was noted when contractors were placing additional rip-rap on the older(i.e.,
pre- 10/9)temporary stabilization patch area.To our knowledge, CCR material has not reached surface waters nor
extensively exited the slope. It is our understanding that displacement of the scarp located at the temporary patch has
become more pronounced.We have DWR and NCGS staff.in route to the site currently to assess the situation.We'll be
working with Duke staff to address the issue in the coming days.As recent as Oct. 5th, Duke Energy consultants indicated
that they felt the global stability of the structural fill site remained above a Factor of Safety of 1.5 and that the saturated
conditions noted were likely limited to the shallow cover soil.
I should have more information late today or early tomorrow. Note my mobile number below if needed.
Thanks.
1

Landon
G. Landon Davidson, P.G.
Regional Supervisor—Asheville Regional Office
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
NCDEQ— Division of Water Resources
828 296 4680 office
828 230 4057 mobile
Landon.Davidson(o)-ncdenr.gov
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28711
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
2

Laval Brett
From: Michael A. Reisman <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 1:17 PM
To: Davidson, Landon
Cc: Lew Bleiweis; Grady L. Shields; Laverty, Brett
Subject: RE: [External]Airport 60 Inch RCP
External email_ o not cb'-k}intcs o open ttachments unless ver%fred.Send att uspicou email s an attachment to
Landon:
We are taking the award of contract before the Airport Board for approval this week on Friday. We don't have a
schedule submittal as of yet from the engineer, but as soon as I do, I will share that information with you. Please be
assured that the airport considers this a high priority and we are moving quickly on it from this point forward.
Mike Reisman
From: Davidson, Landon<[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 8:05 AM
To: Michael A. Reisman<[e-mail]>
Cc: Lew Bleiweis<[e-mail]>; Grady L. Shields<gshie Ids @wyrick.com>; Laverty, Brett
<brett.laverty@ ncde nr.gov>
Subject: RE: [External] Airport 60 Inch RCP
Michael,
Do you have a proposed timeline for completion? Please ensure that the finalized,sealed engineering report is
submitted to us along with any comments or,interpretations the Airport may have with regard to those findings.
Because you have elected to use a different rating system, it would be beneficial to have your consultant evaluate any
changes in RCP condition since the NASSCO PACP assessment since a direct comparison between the two evaluations
will not be possible.
Regards,
Landon
G. Landon Davidson, P.G.
Regional Supervisor—Asheville Regional Office
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
NCDEQ—Division of Water Resources
828 296 4680 office
828 230 4057 mobile
Landon.Davidson 5ncdenr.gov
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28711
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Michael A. Reisman<[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, October 09, 2018 12:54 PM
1

To: Davidson, Landon<landon.davit__,[e-mail]>
Cc:Lzw Bleiweis<[e-mail]>; Grady L. Shields<[e-mail]>
Subject: [External]Airport 60 Inch RCP
C"TION.RmudmK119woe e I'nk o open a ach ents riles ver fie en 11 s prc`ous a atl an tta= e o
-.. ..
Landon—please find attached the Airport Authority's response on the 60 inch RCP.
Michael A. Reisman, A.A.E.
Deputy Executive Director,
Development&Operations
Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority
E-mail: mreismanQ_flyavl.com
Office: 828-654-3253
Mobile: [phone]
WARNING: E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law"NCGS.Ch.132"and may be
disclosed to third parties by an authorized state official. All e-mail sent to or from The Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority(AVL)business e-mail
system is subject to archiving,monitoring and/or review by AVL personnel.This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is
addressed. If you are not the named addressee,you are not authorized to read,print,retain copy or disseminate this message or any part of it.If you
have received this message in error,please notify the sender immediately either by phone[phone])or reply to this e-mail and delete all copies of
this message.
2

Laverty, Brett
From: Pickett, Matt<[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 8:51 AM
To: Laverty, Brett; Lew Bleiweis; Toepfer, John R
Cc: Davidson, Landon; Risgaard, Jon; Zimmerman, Jay; Wooten, Rick; McNash, James-
geosyntec; Nordgren, Scott R.; Michael A. Reisman; Hill, Tim S.
Subject: [External] RE: Asheville Airport Area 1 Site Conditions
Attachments: North Slope Drain outlet 2 10-9-18.JPG; North Slope Drain Outlet 3 10-9-18.JPG; North Slope
drain outlet 10-9-18.JPG
® Egernml _ Do na# ick If or ope attachmeets unless verife .Send a'I susprciou email as an attaehmen#to
Brett,
We plan to have the temporary rip-rap repair complete today. We are extending the repair to tie into the rip-rap for the
energy dissipation from the slope drain. The attached pics show our progress as of this morning. We have the fabric
and sand installed and will be placing rip-rap today. I will send pics of the completed product when complete.
Matt Pickett, P.E. I Duke Energy Asheville/Cliffside CCP System Owner I AVL—828.650.7128 1 CELL—828.216.1398
From: Laverty, Brett [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2018 9:58 AM
To: Lew Bleiweis; Toepfer, John R
Cc: Davidson, Landon; Risgaard, Jon; Zimmerman,Jay; Wooten, Rick; Pickett, Matt; McNash, James -geosyntec;
Nordgren, Scott R.; Michael A. Reisman
Subject: RE: Asheville Airport Area 1 Site Conditions
*** Exercise caution. This is an EXTERNAL email. DO NOT open
attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected
email. ***
Lew and John,
With the potential of heavy rainfall this week associated with Tropical Storm Michael, can you notify me as soon as the
east cell slope rip rap patch has been completed?
Brett Laverty
Brett Laverty
Hydrogeologist—Asheville Regional Office
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
828 296 4500 office
email: brett.lavertyCa_ncdenr.gov
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778
1

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Laverty, Brett
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 11:03 AM
To: 'Lew Bleiweis' <[e-mail]>; 'Toepfer,John R'<[e-mail]>
Cc: Davidson, Landon ([e-mail])<[e-mail]>; Risgaard,Jon
<[e-mail]>;Zimmerman,Jay<[e-mail]>; Wooten, Rick<[e-mail]>;
'Pickett, Matt' <[e-mail]>; 'McNash,James-geosyntec' <[e-mail]>; 'Nordgren,
Scott R.' <[e-mail]>; 'Michael A. Reisman'<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE:Asheville Airport Area 1 Site Conditions
Lew and John,
The Division conducted a site inspection yesterday at the Area 1 structural fill.The attached site map shows the extent
of saturated soils at the toe of the east cell slope exhibiting pumping during my September 10 inspection.'In this
instance, pumping refers to oversaturated conditions where the soil moves as a wave with just foot pressure (see
attached video).This oversaturated condition on September 10 was located approximately 20 feet east of the existing
rip rap patch at the toe of the east cell slope. During yesterday's inspection,this oversaturated condition appears to
have expanded by 20—30 feet in the last few weeks and is moving to the east parallel to the toe of the slope.
While in the field, I had a short conference call with engineers Matt Pickett(Duke Energy) and James McNash
(Geosyntec). Mr. McNash felt confident that the global stability of the structural fill remains above a Factor of Safety of
1.5 and the observed saturated conditions are likely limited to the shallow soil cover. It is my understanding that this
saturated area is being buttressed with filter fabric, sand, and rip rap by contactor Crisp and Crisp as we speak.
There is no additional action required at this time. I just wanted to make you both aware of this dynamic site condition.
Let me know if you have any additional questions or.concerns.
Brett Laverty
Brett Laverty
Hydrogeologist—Asheville Regional Office
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
828 296 4500 office
email: brett.lave rty(cD-ncd en r.gov
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778
2

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Laverty, Brett
Sent:Tuesday,September 11, 2018 10:33 AM
To: 'Lew Bleiweis' <[e-mail]>;Toepfer,John R<[e-mail]>
Cc: Davidson, Landon ([e-mail])<[e-mail]>; Risgaard,Jon
<[e-mail]>; Zimmerman,Jay<[e-mail]>;Wooten, Rick<[e-mail]>;
'Pickett, Matt'<[e-mail]>; McNash,James-geosyntec<[e-mail]>; Nordgren,
Scott R. <[e-mail]>; 'Michael A. Reisman'<[e-mail]>
Subject:Asheville Airport Area 1 Site Conditions
Lew and John,
On the last two site inspections (August 10 and September 10),the Division has observed conditions of concern on the
slope of Area 1.The area of concern is located immediately east of the existing temporary rip-rap patch (see attached).
This roughly 1,000 square foot area has been perpetually wet since September 2017 but the level of saturation has
increased over the last month.There also appears to be some slope movement based on observed soil cracking and the
latest geopin survey indicating lateral movement greater than 0.2 feet at H2 and H3 and vertical movement greater than
0.2 feet at H3.
The Division is recommending that the temporary rip-rap patch be extended to stabilize this saturated area as soon as
possible. I relayed my concerns to James McNash, Matt Pickett, and Scott Nordgren while on-site yesterday. Please
provide a response to the Regional Office.
Brett Laverty
Brett Laverty
Hydrogeologist—Asheville Regional Office
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
828 296 4500 office
email: brett.laverty(o_�ncdenr.aov
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
3

� A _
w ,. ., ' .,. A, ,. ,'f .�
�1.A `
�:r
� _ f
r � yn
�'.. y
i� � ///J�ryy�
/ •'�y,/ ./ / + ��`-"'sue _ •. '
'� \\\ `_
\\1� � _
��
`� ..
f

t 1� h 4 ✓�'
s w.:• .r
. .. � � •., �_ , c 3 �„ � �;� �'' , 2 � =,,gyp
, r t e �V.3 �,� F•� r t; f jn � srY. � y�s ��.'a x.t'���i�y�
,. 'i 1 ✓✓✓� t s (o day' ,�- €a "kkP�'' �L� - '
• � - `` shy.: � � c.. c'� a %�'�`.� a� �
,
,a m ,T
a
w
Pma
;��'' ^ ..:,- ,:.. ` `��, •' u � �'��+ �� .�.>r� � ,�+'��' ` �. fix' �„*��'� �'x i tE� �:m
I CIE
�c J �
` yj' may,✓ � e �y 1 fJT�^���., r-eRA-"'sg`Ce+ f �r I'=� T
Aso' -d" � .dr',�1' "'"* �a t�L --.'� ,.. „,,,s� :,: ,�», ' x -�i--�.t�?' .� ..-m-..•r_. � -,,.
�-ran"°'. ���• �� ��,�^.., �� '�,� _ r "' ,.�;..% *»;a
,n,,rr'g$¢! u'x -3 ..., sue,, r*� """" �. �a►.r.^:." :.�- �., � zw:.
k y i�•.1�' .-,r` cry, _
��'��` �'�. .x# �.� � � �—�st�, --"k .�`�,. +' A r �...�x.T i-rt- •ate i,.^' $.�> ., 'ta ,.s=.� -,..
a�`g�-t fir' v.�� r.,: •�=s"° '"� v �..4-.. � ,+i `�s 5.�-. � � -
�F�•,�„ �' �r����� .� """ Y''' � h� ..... fit'+.- -s; :i' � p``�#�iti��„-.
,
S
a
. N
,
� 4 F
�t
a n +
4 '
,a
,
- e e
. a

. , •
c41
- r
,
. , .
w e3
,
' ^k
- � ,ram_ ^ '.fir.. s '�tb` •
> a .

L
Laverty, Brett
From: Laverty, Brett
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 11:03 AM
To: 'Lew Bleiweis'; 'Toepfer, John R'
Cc: Davidson, Landon ([e-mail]); Risgaard, Jon; Zimmerman, Jay; Wooten,
Rick; 'Pickett, Matt'; 'McNash, James-geosyntec'; 'Nordgren, Scott R.'; 'Michael A. Reisman'
Subject: RE: Asheville Airport Area 1 Site Conditions
Attachments: Asheville Airport Area 1 Inspection Map.pdf; IMG-1831.MOV
Lew and John,
The Division conducted a site inspection yesterday at the Area 1 structural fill.The attached site map shows the extent
of saturated soils at the toe of the east cell slope exhibiting pumping during my September 10 inspection. In this
instance, pumping refers to oversaturated conditions where the soil moves as a wave with just foot pressure (see
attached video).This oversaturated condition on September 10 was located approximately 20 feet east of the existing
rip rap patch at the toe of the east cell slope. During yesterday's inspection,this oversaturated condition appears to
have expanded by 20—30 feet in the last few weeks and is moving to the east parallel to the toe of the slope.
While in the field, I had a short conference call with engineers Matt Pickett(Duke Energy) and James McNash
(Geosyntec). Mr. McNash felt confident that the global stability of the structural fill remains above a Factor of Safety of
1.5 and the observed saturated conditions are likely limited to the shallow soil cover. It is my understanding that this
saturated,area is being buttressed with filter fabric,sand, and rip rap by contactor Crisp and Crisp as we speak.
There is no additional action required at this time. I just wanted to make you both aware of this dynamic site condition.
Let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns.
Brett Laverty
Brett Laverty
Hydrogeologist—Asheville Regional Office
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
828 296 4500 office
email: brett.laverty(a-).ncdenr.gov
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778
'XotWngCompares---,-,
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Laverty, Brett
Sent:Tuesday,September 11,2018 10:33 AM
To; 'Lew Bleiweis' <[e-mail]>;Toepfer,John, R<[e-mail]>
Cc: Davidson, Landon ([e-mail])<[e-mail]>; Risgaard,Jon

<[e-mail]>; Zimmei..n,Jay<[e-mail]>;Wooten, Rick<[e-mail]>;
'Pickett, Matt'<[e-mail]>; McNash,James-geosyntec<[e-mail]>; Nordgren,
Scott R. <[e-mail]>; 'Michael A. Reisman' <[e-mail]>
Subject:Asheville Airport Area 1 Site Conditions
Lew and John,
On the last two site inspections (August 10 and September 10),the Division has observed conditions of concern on the
slope of Area 1.The area of concern is located immediately east of the existing temporary rip-rap patch (see attached).
This roughly 1,000 square foot area has been perpetually wet since September 2017 but the level of saturation has
increased over the last month.There also appears to be some slope movement based on observed soil cracking and the
latest geopin survey indicating lateral movement greater than 0.2 feet at H2 and H3 and vertical movement greater than
0.2 feet at H3.
The Division is recommending that the temporary rip-rap patch be extended to stabilize this saturated area as soon as
possible. I relayed my concerns to James McNash, Matt Pickett, and Scott Nordgren while on-site yesterday. Please
provide a response to the Regional Office.
Brett Laverty
Brett Laverty
Hydrogeologist—Asheville Regional Office
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
828 296 4500 office
email: brett.lave rty(@_ncdenr.gov
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778
3£ -��^Nothing o pares
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
2

— --^-- --„ ---T----'--' '--- -^-T E ' -'^,fir--,r- - - ------ - - ^T;+'- -- - - '--- -- —_'r - - ---�'-
�s
r
Extent of soil pumping on 10/5/18 +
" Appr_o'x mate (� °
' afea'of'slump ' 1 0 I
y i
a r.
jQpgroxcmateaex"tent �, }Approziinatea �� �A---
Mol`st-arre_a^rn'oo P=:
of,��iprap buttress +location of;ciack; Alt
1� /l-Ow 0 serve,- _ _ ;
• . (Seep'f rstj '" }• ' .t ,//
k r ^ noted in 2 15;1". s
5 r BIZ. L' r
=_=• _ a �/��/✓irk I 1 �f�`��� C ?IS '
•. �Approxirnate wet�w ea; ; �•� �' i+Ct �( �n i','� ,� i f{� 3 s
11
- Wl it•no[ed1i'fi 2U15 ±• �! gj r�°t, AD21 v 1141
k t A11 A' r CZJ�t.�- r_E3 �;qI , N
f` .�IIOt�SUCVeyE�d), �` `¢ It41
.N• �E.6, o G7 u l� 'r M• r
F �C •L16 a iiDfi �{ F7'r
fir` .r `Grou•ndw'ateresedp - \ ��,i G: LLcs ��' ;�i 't °
• V `C�ii D7 3 KGB; 48 i t•
C ,8,� ,fJ Yw� • r;. •4# Y + r f d
a � • s+kt`r ,�. �s ) :�: ��: i N2 N� `' o $ B�8j y •' e� ,7! ' .R''E i ,Y6 s.
N3 Mt KA •�
M3
('* L4 K41 r • • w *{ I
- • . yi
i
"- --- - --- - — CPr ' L5 KS t s. .,. Airport security fen CEO r
60'diameter RG�P+ ;' / with concrete f,ooter
•� /
,
WetArea
�Control Point
.It i •y t ' tc'_
F
' A
0 Slope Pi
A
•• .I• Measure, 'y
Area 1 Stormwater Network
•• + n ���
• d s r }
•r1 .r • ! I a4 may. 4• f, �p,o•� t r
4� � • ' • •
2. Slope pins,on the eastern slope and riprap,baseline survey L
performed 1 -I • • 11' 1 1• 1 ns 1 I _ _ ,- }\ia}1 , ht+'f,'. -1 • Airport
North'Carolina
ation locations were surveyed by McKim Creed
Geosynte& DUKE
4. SPT-2A and km an-shown at
1.. _
locations. These
borings -• due- to diffi -•- • 1 • • 1 I 1 111 S, •nsultmits
• . • sr t 11 • • 1
L a ° 4

pte
Geosyntec Consultants of NC,PC
Ge®s c ® 1300 South Mint Street,Suite 300
Charlotte,NC 28203
PH 704.227.0840
consultants
www.geosyntec.com
3 October-2018
Mr. John R. Toepfer, P.E.
Lead Engineer
Duke Energy Progress,LLC.
410 S. Wilmington St./NC15
Raleigh,North Carolina 27601
Subject: Area 1 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Evaluation
Permit No.WQ0000020
Duke Energy Progress,LLC.
Coal Combustion Products (CCP) Structural Fill Projects
Asheville Regional Airport
Buncombe County,North Carolina
Dear Mr. Toepfer:
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC (Geosyntec) prepared this letter report to Duke
Energy Progress, LLC (Duke Energy) in response to the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality(NCDEQ)Division of Water Resources(DWR)Asheville Regional Office
(ARO) review comments on the Area 1 Structural Fill (Area 1) Engineering Analysis Report (90-
day Submittal)for,the Asheville Regional Airport(ARA). Area 1 is located in Buncombe County,
North Carolina(NC) and is owned and maintained by the ARA Authority. On 30 April 2018,Mr.
Brett Laverty, P.G. (NCDEQ) provided comments on the 90-day Submittal which required the
following:
"S. Saturated hydraulic conductivity investigation- The DWR is requiring an evaluation of the
existing ILsATfor the CCP fill soil cap (east and west cells) and the RCP corridor soil cap. "
The purpose of this letter is to:(i)present the available site background information;(ii)summarize
relevant field investigation activities; and(iii)present the measured hydraulic conductivity values
from samples collected within the soil cap within the Area 1 limits.
SITE AND CONSTRUCTION BACKGROUND
Area 1 is situated near the northeastern ARA property boundary and was constructed by Charah,
Inc. (Charah) for the ARA Authority to expand airport operations in 2008. The Area 1 footprint
was a topographic valley that contained a historical stream channel that intermittently flowed
northward from the property. A residential area situated adjacent to the northern property
boundary of Area 1 is traversed by the historical stream channel bef9re discharge into the French
N-
Broad River.
GC646VARA_Area_1_Ksat_Eval
engineers I scientists I innovators

Mr. John R. Toepfer, P.E.
3 October 2018
Page 2
Area 1 was constructed by Charah by filling the topographic valley with compacted coal
combustion residuals (CCR) purchased by Charah from Duke Energy's Asheville Steam Electric
Plant. Title to the CCR material was transferred to Charah as CCR was loaded on to trucks owned
by Charah pursuant to the terms of the sales contract between Duke Energy and Charah. The
historical stream channel was re-routed using a 60-inch (in.) diameter reinforced concrete pipe
(RCP) bedded within drainage aggregate prior to Area 1 construction. The historical stream
channel was rerouted previously upgradient of Area 1 within a 54-in. diameter RCP. A concrete
junction box was installed to transition from the 54-in. to 60-in. diameter RCP prior to installation
of the 60-in. diameter RCP. The historical stream channel was also filled with drainage aggregate
and connected to the RCP trench with 2-foot (ft) wide gravel filled trenches spaced at 100-ft
intervals. Soil backfill was placed from the RCP spring line to 2 feet above the top of pipe.
As-built drawings prepared by Vaughn Engineering, dated 2010, indicate that Area 1 was
constructed with a GCL base liner and a soil cap system. Soil backfill was compacted on the GCL
above and within 50 feet of the 60-in. diameter RCP. The 60-in. diameter RCP divides the Area
1 structural fill into western and eastern cells or fills bisected by the approximately 100-ft wide
compacted soil corridor (termed "RCP soil corridor"). CCR was used as structural fill within the
remainder of Area 1. The soil cap system was constructed of approximately6-ft and 2-ft thick soil
layers on the top deck and side slopes, respectively; however, as-built drawings [Vaughn
Engineering, 2010] depict side slopes with four feet of cap soil. DWR was notified on 23
December 2008 that the side slopes would be capped with a 2-ft thick soil layer. The side slope
soil cover thickness was further evaluated by Charah through a limited field investigation in 2015
in response to a Notice of Violation (NOV-2015-0303) and indicated a soil cap thickness of 2 ft.
Access to the toe of the structural fill slope is provided by a gravel access road situated outside a
security fence maintained by the ARA Authority.
FIELD SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
Geosyntec performed a geotechnical field investigation in August 2018. One of the objectives of
the field investigation was to collect samples to evaluate saturated hydraulic conductivity (KsAT)
of the soil cap installed over the Area 1 CCR cells and RCP soil corridor. The field activities to
support this KsAT evaluation consisted of five soil borings (SPT-5 through SPT-9) advanced from
the Area 1 top deck to varying depths and are shown on Figure 1. Soil boring locations were
selected within each of the areas requested by NCDEQ. During each soil boring, a Shelby tube
was pushed,typically between 2 to 5 feet below ground surface (ft bgs), to collect an undisturbed
soil sample of the soil cap without the presence of shallow root systems. Subsequently, each
sample was transported to a geotechnical laboratory to test the KsAT and geotechnical index
properties.
GC6463/ARA_Area_1_Ksat_Eva1
engineers I scieIltists I innovators

Mr. John R. Toepfer, P.E.
3 October 2018
Page 3
Geosyntec subcontracted Excel Geotechnical Testing,:Inc. (EGT)of Roswell, Georgia to perform
a laboratory test program on selected undisturbed soil samples. The laboratory test program's
purpose was to characterize the soil type and measure the hydraulic conductivity of soil samples
by American Society on Testing and Materials (ASTM)D 5084.
Hydraulic conductivity tests were performed under confining pressures- similar to in-situ
conditions that correspond to each soil sample depth. The confining pressure applied to each soil
sample was assigned as half of the calculated effective vertical stress or two pounds per square
inch (psi), which is the minimum confining pressure recommended by ASTM D 5084. The
laboratory test results prepared by EGT are presented in Appendix A.
SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST RESULTS
The measured saturated hydraulic conductivity from tested undisturbed soil cap samples ranged
between 6.9 x 10-7 centimeters per second(cm/s)and 3.0 x 10"5 cm/s. The geometric mean of the
hydraulic conductivity for the five soil cap samples tested was computed as 6.8 x 10-6 cm/s. The
saturated hydraulic conductivity test results are summarized in Table 1.
CLOSURE
If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Mr.
James D. McNash at 704.227.0855 or at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
mes D..McNash,P.E.(Nc)
roject Engineer
Vi r .Damascen ,Ph.D.,P (NC,FL)
Princi l Engineer
GC646VARA Area 1 Ksat Eval
engineers I scientists,I innovators

Mr. John R. Toepfer, P.E.
3 October 2018
Page 4
REFERENCES
ASTM D 5084, "Standard Test Methods for Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated
Porous Materials Using a Flexible Wall Permeameter."
Vaughn Engineering, 2010. "Charah — Asheville Regional Airport Coal Combustion Product
Engineered Fill: March 2010 Update."Prepared for Charah, 8 March 2010.
GC646YARA_Area 1_Ksat_Eval
engineers ( scientists ( innovators

TABLE
b

Table 1. Summary of Saturated Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Data
Sample Depth Soil T Geometric Mean KsaT
Boring ID (ft bgs) Type KsaT(cm/s) (cm/s)
SPT-5 3-5 ML 8.3 X 10"6
SPT-6 3-5 ML 6.9X10"'
SPT-7 3-5 ME 6.2 X 10"6 6.8 X 10-6
SPT-8 2-4 ML 3.Ox10"5
SPT-9 3-5 ML 1.4X 10"5
Notes:
[1] Saturated hydraulic conductivity tests were conducted by ASTM D5084.
[2] Hydraulic conductivity of each sample was measured under confining pressure similar to
in-situ conditions.
[3] Soil type classified by the Unified Soil Classification System(USCS) based on field and
laboratory observations.
6t

FIGURE

„ x
e
3 )
_ I
Y. .,
b
SO £ 1
.r
£1
,
n
V'
” s
x
x v
S
V,
f �
t
4
r
q i
e
r ,
` I
loll'
$r
{, t
4 l
Y'
t
,• sue. �' >•➢� ,
Legend "
O Soil Boring Location
® Temporary Stabilization Measure
0 Parcel Boundary "` x
n y•
i
CCR Boundary g
__.,j Compliance Boundary
� Review Boundary ,, � � � `' �� , .. �
200 100 0 200 400 Feet
Area 1 Stormwater Network
Notes: Soil Boring Location Map
1.Service Layer Credits: Source:Esri,DigitalGlobe,GeoEye, l 'r • • ' ;� Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Evaluation
Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS,USDA,USGS, 3 'I
AeroGRID,IGN,and the GIs User Community.
j :— s" Asheville Regional Airport
2. Parcel boundaries obtained from Buncombe County GIS website �� " � �•�`- Asheville,North Carolina
on 20 December 2017.
3.Compliance and Review Boundaries obtained from t sha efiles
provided by SynTerra on 16 July 2018. p s t'. y• ,`I '{�n� °', GelS teC® DUKE Figure
e
4. Soil boring locations are approximate and were located by ENERGY. g
handheld GPS. Consultants
5.Limits of CCR scaled from historical documents,should be
OCTOBER 2018
considered approximate,and should be field verified. ,;- " «y CHARLOTTE,NC
„ a

APPENDIX A
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Excel Geotschnacal Testing, Inc.
"Excellence in Testing"
953 Forrest Street,Roswell,Georgia 30075
L Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]
1FLEXMLE WALL PERMEABILITY TEST cl�
ASTM[D 5084
Project Name: Asheville Regional Airport
Project Number: 914
Client Name: Geosyntec Consultants
Site Sample ID: SPT-5 ST-1 (3-5')
Lab Sample Number: 18H068
Material Type: Soil
Specified Value(cm/sec): NA
Date Test Started: 8/21/2018
Specimen Specimen Initial Conditions Hydraulic
Test Conditions
Type Specimen Final Conditions
(See Note2) Spec. Spec. Dry Unit Moisture Cell Back Consolid. Permeant Average Conductivity
Length Diameter Weight Content Press. Press. Press. Liquid(3) Gradient
(-) (cm) (cm) (pcf) M (psi) (psi) (psi) (-) (-) (cm/s)
5.64 7.29 105.3 20.0
ST 72.0 70.0 2.0 DTW 14 8.3E-6
5.77 7.33 101.6 25.2
Notes:
1.Method C,"Falling-Head,Increasing-Tailwater"test procedures were followed during the testing.
2.Specimen Type: ST = Shelby Tube, BS=Block Sample,Ot=Others
3.Type of permeant liquid: DTW=Deaired Tap Water,DDI=Deaired Deionized Water
'Deviations: t)
Laboratory temperature at 22f3*C.

Excel Geotechnical Testing, inc..
"Excellence in Testing"
953 Forrest Street,Roswell,Georgia 30075
t Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]
FLEXIBLE WALL PERMEABILITY TEST cl)
ASTM D 5084"
Project Name: Asheville Regional Airport
Project Number: 914
Client Name: Geosyntec Consultants
Site Sample ID: SPT-6 ST-1 (3-5')
Lab Sample Number: 18HO71
Material Type: Soil
Specified Value(cm/sec): NA
Date Test Started: 8/21/2018
Specimen Specimen Initial Conditions Hydraulic
' Test Conditions
Type Specimen Final Conditions
SeeNote2) Spec. Spec. Dry Unit Moisture Cell Back Consolid. Permeant Average Conductivity
Length Diameter Weight Content Press. Press. Press. Liquid(3) Gradient
(-) (cm) (cm) (pcf) M (Psi) (psi.) (psi) (-) (-) (cm/s)
5.60 7.29 108.5 18.7
ST 72.0 70.0 2.0 DTW 15 6.9E-7
5.66 7.32 103.7 22:2
Notes:
1.Method C,"Falling-Head,Increasing-Tailwater"test procedures were followed during the testing.
2.Specimen Type: ST= Shelby Tube, BS=Block Sample,Ot=Others
3.Type of permeant liquid: DTW=Deaired Tap Water,DDI=Deaired Deionized Water
'Deviations:
Laboratory t—p—two at 33y3-C.

Excel Ge®technicai Testing, inc.
"Excellence in Testing"
953 Forrest Street,Roswell,Georgia 30075
Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]
FLEXIBLE WALL PERMEABILITY TEST
ASTM D 5084 x
Project Name: Asheville Regional Airport
Project Number: 914
Client Name: Geosyntec Consultants
Site Sample ID: SPT-7 ST-1 (3-5')
Lab Sample Number: 18HO74
Material Type: Soil
Specified Value(cm/sec): NA
Date Test Started: 8/21/2018
Specimen Specimen Initial Conditions Hydraulic
Test Conditions
Type Specimen Final Conditions
(See Note2) Spec. Spec. Dry Unit Moisture Cell Back Consolid. Permeant Average Conductivity
Length Diameter Weight Content Press. Press. Press. Liquid(3) Gradient
(-) (cm) (cm) (pcf) M (psi) (psi) (psi) (-) (-) (cm/s)
5.64 7.30 104.2 22.9
ST 72.0 70.0 2.0 DTW 14 6.2E-6
5.71 7.37 101.6 25.1
Notes:
1.Method C,"Falling-Head,Increasing-Tailwater"test procedures were followed during the testing.
2.Specimen Type: ST = Shelby Tube, BS=Block Sample,Ot=Others
3.Type of permeant liquid: DTW=Deaired Tap Water,DDI=Deaired Deionized Water
*Deviations: I�o110
Laboratory temporaturc at 22t3°C. Q Jl

Excel Ge®technicsl Testing, inc.
"Excellence in Testing"
_ 953 Forrest Street,Roswell,Georgia 30075
Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]
F LEXM L1E WALL PERMEABILITY TEST
ASTM)D 5084
Project Name: Asheville Regional Airport
Project Number: 914
Client Name: Geosyntec Consultants
Site Sample ID: SPT-8 ST-1 (2-4')
Lab Sample Number: 18HO75
Material Type: Soil
Specified Value(cm/sec): NA
Date Test Started: 8/21/2018
Specimen Specimen Initial Conditions Hydraulic
Test Conditions
Type Specimen Final Conditions
(See Note2) Spec. Spec. Dry Unit Moisture Cell Back Consolid. Permeant Average Conductivity
Length Diameter Weight Content Press. Press. Press. Liquid(3) Gradient
(-) (cm) (cm) (pcf) (%) (psi) (psi) (psi) (-) (-) (cm/s)
5.64 7.27 93.5 28.5
ST 5.59 7.34 92.4 1 32.1 72.0 70.0 2.0 DTW 12 3.0E-5
Notes:
1.Method C,"Falling Head,Increasing-Tailwater"test procedures were followed during the testing.
2.Specimen Type: ST = Shelby Tube, BS=Block Sample,Ot=Others
3.Type of permeant liquid: DTW=Deaired Tap Water,DDI=Deaired Deionized Water
Deviations:
Laboratory temperature at 22+3'C.
"\

Excel Geotechnical Testing, inc.
"Excellence in Testing"
953 Forrest Street,Roswell,Georgia 30075
Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]
FLEXIBLE WALL PERMEABILITY TEST cl�
ASTM D 5084 K
Project Name: Asheville Regional Airport
Project Number: 914
Client Name: Geosyntec Consultants
Site Sample ID: SPT-9 ST-1 (3-5')
Lab Sample Number: 18H076
Material Type: Soil
Specified Value(cm/sec): NA
Date Test Started: 8/21/2018
Specimen Specimen Initial Conditions Hydraulic
Test Conditions
Type Specimen Final Conditions
(See Note2) Spec. Spec. Dry Unit Moisture Cell Back Consolid. Permeant Average Conductivity
Length Diameter Weight Content Press. Press. Press. Liquid(3) Gradient
(-) (cm) (cm) (pcf) M (psi) (psi) (psi) (-) (-) (cm/s)
5.70 7.32 98.2 17.1
ST 72.0 70.0 2.0 DTW 13 1.4E-5
5.85 7.34 92.5 28.3
Notes:
1.Method C,"Falling-Head,Increasing-Tailwater"test procedures were followed during the testing.
2.Specimen Type: ST = Shelby Tube, BS=Block Sample,Ot=Others
3.Type of permeant liquid: DTW=Deaired Tap Water,DDI=Deaired Deionized Water
*Deviations:
Laboratory temperature at 224--3-C. [\O
q-o rA r CIS

Excel Geotechnical Testing, laic.
a "Excellence in Testing"
-x 953 Forrest Street,Roswell,Georgia 30075
Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]
LA 0" I ' VA G
Test Applicability and Limitations:
-The results are applicable only for the materials received at the laboratory and tested which may or may not be
representative of the materials at the site.
Storage Policy:
-Uncontaminated Material:All samples(or what is left)will be archived for a period of 3 months from the date received.
Thereafter the samples will be discarded unless a written request for extended storage is received.A rate of$1.00 per
sample per day will be applied after the initial 3 month storage period.
-Contaminated Material:All samples(or what is left)will be archived for a period of 3 months from.the date received.
Thereafter,the samples will be returned o the project manager or his/her designated receiver unless a written request for
extended storage is received.A rate of$1.30 per sample per day will be applied after the initial 3 months storage.
r
Temp-LastPage-I 1K05

Asheville Airport Area 1 CCR Structural Fill-September 28,2018 Project Meeting
Brett Laverty Meeting Notes
• Jason Walls—Duke Energy Asheville Plant Manager
Opened the meeting. Defined the purpose of the meeting as a way of framing up operational solutions
and identifying a path forward on Area 1. Duke is also interested in having discussions on future permit
holders and long-term liability/ownership. It is Duke's opinion that they should not bear long-term
responsibility(permit) because they do not own the land where the structural fill resides.
• Landon Davidson—DWR Asheville Regional Office Supervisor
Was asked what DEQ intends to do once the current Duke permit expires in 2020? His response was that
someone (either Airport or Duke)would receive,an individual permit with review/compliance
boundaries.
• Lew Bleiweis—Director of Asheville Regional Airport
Area 1 was permitted and constructed prior to his arrival at the Airport.The old Airport Authority board
approved Area 1 with the understanding that Charah and Progress Energy/Duke Energy were committed
to maintaining the structural fill over the long-term.The Airport does not have the financial and physical
capabilities to deal with the catastrophic failures associated with the structural fill projects.All Airport
revenues are used to maintain the existing infrastructure.The FAA is not supportive of the structural fill
projects and may be the reason why the Charlotte Airport stop plans to expand using coal ash. Long-
term financial liability for the structural fills is most important issue to the Airport.
• Jason Walls—Duke Energy Asheville Plant Manager
Duke is committed to identifying long-term solutions and fixing Area 1 despite having different
interpretation of current permit. Duke is looking for exit strategy at the end of the permit cycle (2020).
Duke believes responsibility and liability should be shared (Duke,Airport, Charah??).,
• Lew Bleiweis—Director of Asheville Regional Airport
We are a decade into post-closure and no one was expecting to be here on Area 1.Airport not finically
able to maintain the structural fill projects in the long-term.Thought responsibility was worked out in
2016 access agreement. Some doubts as to whether Area 1 can be developed in its current condition.
The Airport Authority board does not want ownership or long-term liability of the coal ash structural
fills.
• Tim Hill—Duke Energy
The design and construction of a geomembrane cover should not proceed until groundwater and RCP
assessment is completed.
• Michael Reisman - Deputy Director of Asheville Regional Airport

The Airport does not want RCP corridor covered with geomembrane because it will serve as a utility
corridor for future development. Anticipates utilities will extend well below elevation of the
geomembrane.Airport also has doubts about the geomembrane as the final long-term solution.
• Jason Walls—Duke Energy Asheville Plant Manager
Does the Airport have any role with regards to the coal ash structural fill?The Airport does not answer.
Charles Case—Duke Attorney/McGuireWoods LLP
• Issues at Area 1 are not a failure to maintain the structural fill but rather a failure of design.
Advocates bringing in Charah as a missing partner that should be at the table.

Laverty, Brett
From: Pickett, Matt<[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 6:25 PM
To: Laverty, Brett; Hill, Tim S.' Toepfer, John R; John Coon
Cc: Nordgren, Scott R.; McNash, James-geosyntec
Subject: [External]ARA Area 1 Status
�Reo.fSam.
Brett,
I checked Area 1 today and the area was in good shape with no exposed ash or further evidence of sloughing or
cracking. Though the Airport has mowed the top and.the east slope of the fill,they have not mowed the north slope,
making inspections more difficult. The area east of the rip-rap was soggy, and has not appeared to slough any more, but
the high vegetation impeded inspection.
We start the temporary repair on Monday, and the contractor is going to give me a price to extend the rip rap to the
east. My plan is to extend it to that other rip rap patch we put in with the original rip rap along the slope from the toe to
about the same height(maybe a foot higher) as the existing rip rap.
Matt Pickett, P.E.
Lead Engineer- Duke Energy
Asheville and Cliffside CCP System Owner
200 CP&L Drive
Arden, NC 28704
AVL—828.650.7128
CELL—828.216.1398
1

r ,
® Geosyntee Consultants of NC,PC
Geosyntec 1300 South.Mint Street,Suite 300
Charlotte,NC 28203
PH 704.227.0840
consultants www.geosyntee.com
21 September 2018
Mr. John R. Toepfer,P.E.
Lead Engineer
Duke Energy Progress,LLC.
410 S. Wilmington St./NC15
Raleigh,North Carolina 27601
Subject: Area 1 Geosynthetic Clay Liner(GCL)Performance Evaluation
Permit No.WQ0000020
Duke Energy Progress,LLC.
Coal Combustion Products (CCP) Structural Fill Projects
Asheville Regional Airport-
Buncombe County,North Carolina
Dear Mr. Toepfer:
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC (Geosyntec) prepared this letter to Duke Energy
Progress, LLC (Duke Energy) in response to the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality(NCDEQ)Division of Water Resources(D)vVR)Asheville Regional Office (ARO)review
comments on the Area 1 Structural Fill (Area 1) Engineering Analysis Report(90-day Submittal)
for the Asheville Regional Airport(ARA). Area 1 is located in Buncombe County,North Carolina
(NC) and is owned and maintained by the ARA Authority. On 30 April 2018, Mr. Brett Laverty,
P.G. (NCDEQ) provided comments on the 90-day Submittal which required the following:
"6. GCL evaluation—The DWR is requiring an evaluation of the GCL to determine if the CCP
leachate is impeding(chemical.resistance) the performance of the GCL."
The purpose of this letter is to: (i) present the available site background, (ii) summarize the
available relevant engineering literature; and (iii) evaluate the estimate performance of the GCL
was installed as the Area 1 bottom liner.
SITE AND CONSTRUCTION BACKGROUND
Area 1 is situated near the northeastern ARA property boundary and was constructed by Charah,
Inc. (Charah) for the ARA Authority to expand airport operations. The Area 1 footprint was a
topographic valley that contained a historical stream channel that intermittently flowed northward
from the property. A residential area situated adjacent to the northern property boundary of Area
1 is traversed by the historical stream channel before discharge into the French Broad River.
GC6463/ARA Area 1 GCL Performance Eval
engineers I scientists I innovators

Mr. John R. Toepfer, P.E.
21 September 2018
Page 2
Area 1 was constructed by Charah by filling the topographic valley with compacted coal
combustion residuals (CCR) purchased by Charah from Duke Energy's Asheville Steam Electric
Plant. Title to the CCR material was transferred to Charah as`CCR was loaded onto trucks owned
by Charah pursuant to the terms of the sales contract between Duke Energy-and-Charah. The
historical stream channel was re-routed using a 60-inch (in.) diameter reinforced concrete'pipe
(RCP) bedded within drainage aggregate prior to Area 1 construction. The historical stream
channel was rerouted previously upgradient of Area 1 within a 54-in. diameter RCP. A concrete
junction box was installed to transition from the 54-in. to 60-in. diameter RCP prior to installation
of the 60-in. diameter RCP. The historical stream channel was also filled with drainage aggregate
and connected to the RCP trench with 2-foot (ft) wide gravel filled trenches spaced at 100-ft
intervals. Soil backfill was placed from the RCP spring line to 2 feet above the top of pipe.
As-built drawings prepared by Vaughn Engineering, dated 2010, indicate that Area 1 was
constructed with a GCL base liner and a soil cap system. Soil backfill was compacted on the GCL
above and within 50 feet of the 60-in. diameter RCP. The 60-in. diameter RCP divides the Area
1 structural fill into western and eastern cells or fills bisected by the approximately 100-ft wide
compacted soil corridor..CCR was used as structural fill within the remainder of Area 1. The soil
cap system was constructed of'approximately 6-ft and 2-ft thick soil layers on the top deck and
side slopes, respectively. As-built drawings [Vaughn Engineering, 2010]'indicate that the'side
slopes were capped with four feet of cap soil;however,DWR was notified 23 December 2008 that
the side slopes would be capped with a 2-ft thick soil layer. Charah subsequently confirmed the
side slope soil cap thickness of two feet in 2015 in response to a 2015 Notice of Violation(NOV-
2015-0303) through a limited field investigation. Access to the toe of the structural fill slope is
provided by a gravel access road situated outside a security fence maintained by the ARA
Authority.
The as-built drawings indicate that the (W < ��,,.1n i4i1: r � 'haiza�t ,M= 23" 1a.
a ',_t� 5 t n Charah furnished the technical
specifications and product data sheet for the liner and GCL, respectively, to Duke Energy on 25
July 2018,which indicate that a M F 07 POWti jr,�produced by CETCO Lining Technologies
(CETCO), was installed at Area 1. The product datasheet, provided as Attachment A, indicates
that the permeability of the GCL is 5 X 10-9 cm/s when tested with de-aired distilled/de-ionized
water.
LITERATURE REVIEW
GCLs are often utilized as a low permeability alternative to a typical 2-ft thick compacted clay
liner within waste containment facilities where clay borrow sources are not readily!available.
GLCs are typically composed of sodium (Ne) bentonite encapsulated by two nori-woven
geotextiles. Bentonite may contain cations other than sodium, which is dependent on the`source
GC6463/ARA Area_1_GCL Performance_Eval
engineers I scientists I innovators

Mr. John R. Toepfer, P.E.
21 September 2018
Page 3
of the material. Ne bentonites exhibit low permeability when exposed to de-ionized water
because osmotic swelling occurs as the monovalent Ne cations bond to the montmorillonite clay
minerals. �" c . rage ca n:�� M �,M�.��'a ne11 oft I � �. c:,m
C I cl en Rermkper ° sticf g° ) n ip, .s n atpic
nvdr. 1s slh � Is'' egg ne dies =ofe6irtiliFltih1 teed
Nunn r�aa stta ,a4v seva�lh a d p f n vft I is s
pert f 1 i�dixi *W c-h~
Effect of Ionic Strength
The ionic strength of a permeating liquid provides a measure of the concentration of the positively
charged ions in the solution and is defined as follows [Jo et al., 2001; Kolstad et al., 2004]:
n
1
I = 2 CiZi [1]
i=1
Where Ci is the molar concentration of the ith ion in solution and Zi is the valence of the ith ion.
Hydraulic conductivity is a function of osmotic swelling o=� " ng ir— late
pert -ra z; - ;�. s e chG n � e.,
rne > d�vtlhtio ttic11 r� ' 1�11ihr L
p5ma euTd—ff l ttu�. U sul s 1ar
[Shackelford et al., 2000; Benson and Meer, 2009].
Effect of Cation Valence
The ratio between monovalent and polyvalent cations (RMD) in the permeating liquid provides a
measure of the relative abundance of monovalent and polyvalent cations, defined as follows
[Kolstad et al., 2004]:
RAID= M. [2]
Md
where Mm is the total molarity of monovalent cations and Md is the molarity of polyvalent cations
in the permeating solution.
eating i Zte r n a �� i :_ g tea"., ne f
nt cations'a` feo= etic s1=i en .nr_e1� 1tCC=LrhIgher c rf aulic
c� ��lL��t .y�[Jo'-et�1-:�0d�1'�Il�fiadal�T2b0�;=Sealia �1' 2�1�4]. '
GC6463/ARA Area 1 GCL Performance Eval
engineers I scientists I innovators

Mr. John R. Toepfer, P.E.
21 September 2018
Page 4
Previous Studies
Chen et al. [2018] conducted a study to evaluate how different CCR leachates affect;the hydraulic
conductivity of GCLs that contain Na+ bentonite. Hydraulic conductivity tests were performed
with typical GCL specimens from two manufacturers (referred as CS and_GS)in the United States_
using five CCR leachates. CCR leachates were selected based on Benson et.al.' [2014].-after
analyzing leachate compositions from CCR facilities as reported in the Electric Power,Research,
Institute (EPRI) CCR leachate database [EPRI,42006; 2009]. Selected leachates (1`1a+, K+, Ca2+z
Mgt+, Cl and SO42" are predominant ions in all leachates) are presented on Figure 1 and
summarized below:
• Typical CCP leachate (I = 39.5 mM and RMD = 0.16 M") represents the geometric
mean ionic strength and RMD of the CCR leachates;
• Strongly Divalent Cation CCR`(low RMD) Leachate (I = 48.0 mM and RMD = 0.014
M1/2);
• Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) Leachate (I = 96.8 mM and RMD = 0.39 Ml/2).
• High Ionic Strength CCR(High Strength) Leachate (I= 177 mM and RMD= 1.0 M"2);
and
4• Trona Ash(Trona) Leachate (I =755 mM and RMD =4.5M1/2).
'h
Hydraulic conductivities for both GCLs (i.e., CS and GS manufacturers) permeated directly with
'CCR leachates under 20 kiloPascals (kPa) confining stress are presented in Figure 2. Table 1
summarizes hydraulic conductivity test conditions and results [Chen et al, 2018].
Figure 2 and Table I show that CCR leachate chemistry strongly affects the performance of a
GCL. Abundance of polyvalent cations relative to monovalent cations in CCR leachates modestly
affects the hydraulic conductivity based on the ionic strength [Chen et Al, 2018].
The C1ayMax® 20OR GCL product data is provided within Appendix A and presents laboratory
test results performed with de-ionized water. The C1ayMaxo 20OR manufacturer identified a
permeability of 5 X 10"9 cm/s after permeation of deionized water at a confining pressure of 551
kPa or 79.9 pounds per square inch (psi). Table 2 presents the average GCL hydraulic
conductivities measured .by Chen et al. [2018] for-tested leachates and varying GCL hydration
conditions.
Pre-Hydration Effects
Available construction records, technical specifications, and photographs indicate that the Area 1
structural fill GCL base was constructed incrementally. The contractor graded the subgrade to
approximate design elevations and slopes and shbsequently placed GCL panels with a six=irieli
overlap. CCR was placed on the preceding panel before placement of a subsequent panel.
Technical specifications or other available records do not indicate whether the GCL was pre-
GC6463/ARA Area 1 GCL Performance Eval
engineers i scientists 1 innovators

Mr. John R. Toepfer, P.E.
21 September 2018
Page 5
hydrated before CCR placement and Geosyntec assumed that the GCL was placed on a firm, dry
subgrade.c t
as V_x
n,_r of
The hydration or pre-hydration of a GCL influences the in-situ permeability or hydraulic
conductivity performance. re
y erg nor tUl EN-Ye t—4- it, =17MMIMEZEME hi ga,2:9MRafl-rae d", ore-
y,d"MaTI. The subgrade moisture generally contains less cations,which allows the osmotic swelling
behavior to occur before contact with higher ionic strength leachates. The influence of pre-
hydration on hydraulic conductivity performance is less pronounced with increased confining
stress and the measured hydraulic conductivity can be increased by nearly two orders of magnitude
without pre-hydration.
Leachate Chemistry Effects
e
0-1-m.is tIre—L9zfth,!8Tr76jTgth
I�a.ach- Available construction records indicate that Trona
or FGD material was not sold to the Asheville Regional Airport and not placed within Area 1.
As discussed previously, leachate chemistry strongly influences a GCL's performance and may
limit the osmotic swelling behavior in-situ. Tested GCLs permeated with Typical CCP, Low
RMD, and High Strength Leachates were measured with higher hydraulic conductivities than the
same GCLs when permeated with deionized water [Chen et al., 2018]. 1 _.dqto-_4,n dfizat@-s
t -.1
it etiV 01 ly it_
Zasur% M. li 715,u
magnitude
may
increas e.
Confining Pressure during Hydration
Currently,the typical confining pressure for the GCL at the base of Area I is approximately 2,375
psf or 114 IcPa,assuming a CCR unit weight of 95 pounds per cubic foot(pef). However,the CCR
placement rate is unknown. Thus, Geosyntec evaluated the GCL performance if hydrated at both
20 kPa and 100 kPa. As shown in Table 2, increased confining pressure at hydration decreases
the measured hydraulic conductivity.
GCL Performance Range
Geosyntec evaluated the "best case" and "worst case" scenarios to bound the estimated
performance of the installed GCL at Area 1. Specifically, Geosyntec evaluated the following
scenarios:
GC6463/ARA—Area—1 7 GCL—Performance—Eval
engineers I scientists I innovators

Mr. John R. Toepfer, P.E.
21 September 2018
Page 6
• CCR was placed rapidly with only leachate permeation of Typical CCP Leachate as the
"best-case" condition. For the "best case" scenario the GCL's hydraulic conductivity
could be up to one order of magnitude higher than those measured within the
laboratory.
• A"worst-case" scenario where CCR was placed slowly, leachate permeation occurred
under low confining.stresses,the GCL was not pre-hydrated,and the leachate chemistry
is similar to the "High Strength Leachate" was also evaluated. Each of these
assumptions is conservative, and are not representative of anticipated in-situ
conditions. Under the "worst-case" scenario, the GCL's could be four orders of
magnitude higher than measured within the laboratory.
The above assumptions indicate the GCL performance is dependent on several components that
could lead to up to four orders of magnitude difference in hydraulic conductivity. However, the
hydraulic conductivity range narrows as GCL placement assumptions approximate standard of
care/practice (e.g., GCL allowed to hydrate from subgrade moisture and/or evening dew prior to
permeation with leachate).
Geosyntec also reviewed (i) CCR leachate data available from another Duke Energy site and (ii)
hydraulic conductivity test results performed using a synthetically generated Duke Energy CCR
leachate and a typical, non-treated GCL. A GSE BentoLiner NSL liner was selected at a
comparison site and Table 3 presents a comparison between the GSE BentoLiner NSL and the
C1ayMax®20OR GCL laboratory measured properties to demonstrate the two GCLs are equivalent
products.
The literature review presented herein and review of CCR Leachate data from other Duke Energy
facilities indicate that the expected leachate characteristics are likely similar to the Typical CCP
Leachate [Benson et al. 2014]. The literature review indicates that leachate characteristics can
impact the hydraulic performance of GCLs; however, GCLs typically perform between 10' cm/s
and 10-7 cm/s (Figure 2), with respect to hydraulic conductivity when exposed to CCR Leachate.
Earlier research performed by Kolstad [2004] indicated that a majority of tested leachates result in
GCL performance between 10-9 cm/s and 10-8 cm/s (Figure 3). In addition, the hydraulic
conductivity of non-treated GCL (e.g., GSE BentoLiner NSL GCL)permeated with CCR Leachate
from another Duke Energy site under 4 psi (27.6 kPa) confming stress resulted in measured
hydraulic conductivity values between 3.9 x 10-10 cm/s to 3.3 x 10-9 cm/s.
GC6463/ARA_Area_I_GCL Performance_Eval
engineers I scientists I innovators

Mr. John R. Toepfer, P.E.
21 September 2018
Page 7
CLOSURE
If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Mr.
James D. McNash at 704.227.0855 or at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
J es D.McNash,P.E.(Nc)
Project Engineer
Damasc o, Ph.D., .E. (Nc,FL)
Prin al Engineer
GC6463/ARA_Area_I_GCL_Performance_Eval
engineers I scientists l innovators

Mr. John R. Toepfer, P.E.
21 September 2018
Page 8
REFERENCES
Benson, C., and Meer, S. (2009). Relative Abundance of Monovalent and Divalent Cations and the
Impact of Desiccation on Geosynthetic Clay Liners. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering. Vol. 135(3): pp. 349-358.
Chen, J.N., Benson, C. H., and Edil, T. B. (2018). Hydraulic Conductivity of Geosynthetic Clay
Liners with Sodium Bentonite to Coal Combustion Product Leachates, Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 144(3): 04018008.
EPRI (2006). Characterization of Field Leachates at Coal Combustion Product Management Sites,
Electric Power Research Institute,Rep.No. 1012578,Palo Alto, CA.
EPRI (2009). Coal ash: Characteristics, management, and environmental issues. Electric Power
Research Institute. Rep.No. 1019022,Palo Alto, CA.
Jo,H. Y.,Katsuini,T.,Benson, C.H.,and Edil,T. B. (2001).Hydraulic Conductivity and Swelling
of Nonprehydrated GCLs Permeated with Single-Species Salt Solutions. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127(7): pp. 557-567.
Jo, H. Y., Katsumi, T., Benson, C. H., and Edil, T. B. (2004). Hydraulic Conductivity and Cation
Exchange in Non-Prehydrated and Prehydrated Bentonite Permeated with Weaklnorganic
Salt Solutions, Clays and Clay Minerals, Vol. 52(6): pp.661-679.
Kolstad, D. C., Benson, C. H., and Edil, T. B. (2004). Hydraulic Conductivity and Swell of
Nonprehydrated Geosynthetic Clay Liners Permeated with Multispecies Inorganic
Solutions, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. Vol. 130(12): pp.
123 6-1249.
Shackelford, C. D., Benson, C. H., Katsumi, T., Edil, T. B., and Lin L. (2000). "Evaluating the
Hydraulic Conductivity of GCLs Permeated with Non-Standard Liquids", Geotextile and
Geomembranes, Vol. 18: pp. 133-161.
GC6463/ARA_Area_I_GCL_Performance_Eval
engineers I scientists I innovators

TABLES

Table 1. Summary of Hydraulic Conductivity Testing [Chen et al., 2018]
Final GCL Hydraulic conductivity (m/s)at specified effective stress
Prehydration Permeation thickness Swell index
GCL method liquid (mm) (mL/2 g) 20 kPa 100 kPa 250 kPa 450 kPa
CS None DI water 10.8 36.0 2.6 x 10-11 - - -
Typical CCP 5.4 29.5 5.7 x 10-10 1.3 x 10-10 3.3 x 10-11 1.5 x 10-11
Low RMD 5.1 24.0 2.0 x 10-9 1.3 x 10-10 2.3 x 10-11 1.1 x 10-11
FGD 5.2 18.5 8.8 x 10-9 1.3 x 10-10 3.3 x 10-It 1.7 x 10-11
High strength 5.2 15.0 1.7 x 10-7 4.6 x 10-1 1.2 x 10-8 9.8 x 10-10
5.8a 15.0 4.5 x 10-9a
Trona 5.1 8.0 1.2 x 10-6 1.2 x 10 7 7.4 x 10-9 1.1 x 10-9
7.5a, 4.9b 8.0, 8.0 1.8 x 10-7a 3.2 x 10-12b
Subgrade Typical CCP 5.4 25.0 7.6 x 10-11 1.1 x 10-11 6.5 x 10712 2.4 x 10-1'-
Low RMD 5.2 22.0 1.0 x 10-9 4.5 x 10-10 3.9 x 10'11 2.2 x 10-11
FGD 5.4 18.0 8.0 x 10-8 2.3 x 10-11 5.1 x 10-1' 1.9 x 10-1'-
High strength 5.3 20.0 8.7 x 10-7 1?x 10_s 3.2 x 10-11 1.6 x 10-11
Trona 5.1 21.5 2.6 x 10-6 1.0 x 10 7 2.1 x 10-9 5.0 x 10-10
DI water Trona 9.2 34.0 7.0 x 10-10 - - -
GS None DI water 10.3 32.5 3.6 x 10-11 - - -
Typical CCP 5.5 24.5 3.2 x 10-10 5.7 x 10-11 1.3 x 10-11 5.8 x 10-1'-
Low RMD 5.2 21.5 9.6 x 10-9 7.7 x 10-9 5.1 x 10-9 1.1 x 10-9
FGD 5.2 19.0 1.8 x 10-8 1.5 x 10-1 3.3 x 10-9 3.2 x 10-10
High strength 5.1 13.0 1.5 x 10-8 9.9 x 10-9 4.3 x 10-" 1.7 x 10-11
5.8a 13.0 6.5 x 10-10"
Trona 5.2 8.0 5.4 x 10-1 8.1 x 10-9 1.4 x 10-9 5.3 x 10-11
7.Oa, 5.Ob 8.0, 8.0 1.3 x 10-103 3.0 x 10_12b
Subgrade Typical CCP 5.5 27.5 5.9 x 10-11 4.7 x 10-11 3.9 x 10" 3.5 x 10-1'-
Low RMD 5.3 30.0 1.3 x 10-9 4.5 x 10-10 3.9 x 10-11 2.2 x 10-11
FGD 5.3 22.0 1.8 x 10-s 1.5 x 10-1 5.0 x 10-9 2.9 x 10-10
High strength 5.2 24.0 1.3 x 10-8 7.2 x 10-9 1.7 x 10-10 1.8 x 10-11
Trona 5.1 24.0 1.5 x 10_s 3.7 x 10-9 4.2 x 10-10 1.8 x 10-11
DI water Trona 9.3 30.0 6.4 x 10-11 - - -
Note: Thickness measured at end of test at 450 kPa unless specified otherwise; swell index measured with permeant solution after hydration step.
'Corresponds to test on specimen consolidated directly to 100 kPa prior to permeation.
bCorresponds to test on specimen consolidated directly to 450 kPa prior to permeation.

Table 2.Average Hydraulic Conductivity Test Results [Chen et al.,20181
Hydraulic Conductivity (m/s) at
Prehydration Permeation Specified Effective Stress III
Method Liquid 20 kPa 100 kPa
None DI Water 3.1 X 10-i i _
Typical CCP 4.5 X 10-10 9.4 X 10-"
None Low RMD 5.8 X 10-9 3.9 X 10-9
High Strength 9.3 X 10-8 2.8 X 10-1
Typical CCP 6.8 X 10-11 2.9 X 10-"
Subgrade Low RMD 1.2 X 10-9 4.5 X 10-'0
High Strength 4.4 X 10`' 9.6 X 10-9
Notes:
[1] Average values from two GCLs presented by Chen et al. [2018].
[2] Only conditions which may apply to the Site are included in this table.
J

Table 3. GCL Product Specification Comparison
Provided Value
Tested Property C1ayMax®20OR GSE BentoLiner NSL
Bentonite Swell Index 24 ml/2g min 24 ml/2g min
Bentonite Mass/Unit Area 0.75 lb/ft2 0.75 lb/ft2
Hydraulic Conductivity 121 < 5 x 10-' cm/s [3] < 5 x 10"9 cm/s 141
Index Flux [21 < 1 x 10-1 m3/m2/s [3] < 1 x 10-' m3/1112/s [41
Notes:
[1] Bentonite mass/unit area at zero percent moisture content.
[2] Test program performed with dcaired deionized water.
[3] Test program performed at 60 psi cell pressure, 77 psi headwater pressure, and 75 psi tail water pressure.
[4] Tests preformed at 5 psi confming pressure and 2 psi head pressure.

FIGURES

102
0 ERPI CCP Leachates
• Synthetic Leachates
10� 0
0 Trona •
N 101
°0 0 0 : High
Typical CCP 0 Strength
.� co 0 FGD
❑ o 00 o
10-1 ° o
o °
0 0 ° 09
0 0
0
10-2 ° 10 0 Low RMD
0
10-1
100 101 102 103
Ionic Strength (mM)
Figure 1. Relationship between RMD and Ionic Strength (I) for CCP leachate in EPRI
database [Chen et al.,20181

T5 .
` CS § \
10-6 GSA Tr2
^ �
High
� st
10
Low FGD
� ]U�\ PM aL3
O
� \ :
� T�
U��L CCP
12-11 IF \ :q2311 10 10 @
Ionic strength (mom)
Figure 2 Hydraulic Conductivity of GCts Directly Permeated with CCP £e c a eat 20
kP■ [Chen e al., 20181

100
MSW Leachate CCP Leachates
• CCP Leachate
• LLW Leachates
10 w Frac Flowback Wate % :; n
■ Bauxite Liquor
01 ,E1 Bauxite liquor
: � . & Flow Back
o ® y,.:•�' :� .�,, Water
� .
0.01 :� • • 'o 0
More '
Concentrated
0.001
1 10 100 1000 10000
Valid range for
Kolstad et al. (2004) 1 (MM)
Figure 3. Relationship between GCL Hydraulic Conductivity,Ionic Strength, and Ratio of
Monovalent to Divalent Ions [Kolstad, 2004]

ry
APPENDIX A — GCL Product Data

geosynthetic clay liners o geosyntheric clay liners geosXnther`ic clay liners
o Q_M dPrroperaes
CL"MA)e 20OR CERTIFIED PROPERTIES
MATERIAL PROPERTY TEST METHOD TEST FREQUENCY REQUIRED VALUES
ft2(M2)
Bentonite Swell Index' ASTM D 5890 1 per 50 tonnes 24 mL/2g min.
Bentonite Fluid Loss' ASTM D 5 891 1 per 50 tonnes 18 mL max.
Bentonite Mass/Areal ASTM D 5993 40,000 ft2(4,000 m2) 0.75 lb/f-0(3.6 kg/M2)min
GCL Grab Strengtj,13 ASTM D 4632 200,000 fe (20,000 rn') 100 lbs(445 N)MARV
ASTM D 6768 25 lbs/in(44 N/cm)MARV
GCL Peel Strength 3 ASTM D ASTM D 4632 N/A f = N/A
6496
GCL Index FluX4 ASTM D 5887 Weekly 1 X 10-8 M3/M2/see max
GCL Hydraulic ConduetiVitY4 ASTM D 5887 Weekly 5 x 10-9 cm/sec max
GCL Hydrated 5 Internal ASTM D 5321
Shear Strength ASTM D 6243 Periodic 50 psf(2.4 kPa)typical
Claymax 20OR is an unreinforced GCL consisting of a layer of sodium bentonite between two nonwoven
geotextiles, which are continuously adhered together.
Notes
1 Bentonite property tests performed at a bentonite processing facility before shipment to CETCO's GCL production facilities.
2 Bentonite mass/area reported at 0 percent moisture content.
3 All tensile strength testing is performed in the machine direction using 4 inch grips per modified ASTM D 4632. Results are reported as minimum average roll values
unless otherwise indicated. Upon request tensile strength can be reported per ASTM D 6768.
"Index flux and permeability testing with deaired distilled/deionized water at 80 psi(55 IkPa)cell pressure,77 psi(531 kPa)headwater pressure and 75 psi(5 17 kPa)
tailwater pressure. Reported value is equivalent to 925 gal/acre/day. Actual flux values vary with field condition pressures. The last 20 weekly values prior the end
of the production date of the supplied GCL may be provided.
5 Peak value measured at 200 psf(IO kPa)normal stress for a specimen hydrated for 48 hours. Site-specific materials,GCL products,and test conditions must be used
to verify internal and interface strength of the proposed design.
r=D
L[NING TECHNOLOGIES
1500 W.Shure Drive Arlington Heights,IL 60004 USA 800.527.9948 Fax [phone]
For the most up-to-date information please visit our website,www.cetco.com
A wholly owned subsidiary ofAMCOL International
The information and date contained herein are believed to be accurate and reliable.CETCO makes no warranty of any kind and accepts no responsibility for the results
obtained through application of this information.
Revised 09/04
TR 401-CMR

i
P-RODUCTIATA
GSE BentoLiner NSL Geosynthetic Clay Liner
GSE BentoLiner"NSL"is a needle-punched reinforced composite geosynthetic clay liner t
(GCL)comprised of a uniform layer of granular sodium bentonite encapsulated between
a woven and a nonwoven geotextile.The product is intended for moderate to steep AT THE CORE:
slopes and moderate to high load applications where increased internal shear strength is This composite clay liner is
required. intended for moderate to
steep slopes and moderate
to high load applications
where increased internal
shear strength is required.
Product Specifications
Tested Property
Geotextile Property
Cap Nonwoven,Mass/Unit Area ASTM D 5261 1/200.000 ft26.0 oz/yd2 MARV")
Carrier Woven,Mass/Unit Area ASTM D 5261 1/200,000 ft2 3.1 oz/yd2 MARV
Bentonite Property
Swell Index ASTM D 5890 1/100.000 lb 24 ml/2 g min
Moisture Content ASTM D 4643 1/100.000 lb 12%max
Fluid Loss ASTM D 5891 1/100,000 lb 18 ml max
Finished GCL Property
Bentonite,Mass/Unit Area(2) ASTM D 5993 1/40,000 ft2 0.75 Ib/ft2 MARV
Tensile Strength(3) ASTM D 6768 1/40,000 ft2 30 lb/in MARV
Peel Strength ASTM D 6496 1/40,000 ft2 3.5 lb/in MARV
ASTM D 4632(4) 21 lb MARV
Hydraulic Conductivity(') ASTM D 5887 1/Week 5 x 10A cm/sec max
Index Flux(') ASTM D 5887 1/Week 1 x 10$m3/m2/sec max
Internal Shear Strength(6) ASTM D 6243 Periodically 500 psf Typical
TYPICAL ROLL DIMENSIONS
Width x Length(') Typical Every Roll 15.5 ft x 150 ft
Area per Roll Typical Every Roll 2,325 ft2
Packaged Weight Typical Every Roll 2,600 lb
NOTES:
(')Minimum Average Roll Value.
"'At 0%moisture content.
(3)Tested in machine direction.
(4)Modified ASTM D 4632 to use a 4 in wide grip.The maximum peak of five specimens averaged in machine direction.
(6)Deaired,deionized water @ 5 psi maximum effective confining stress and 2 psi head pressure.
(6)Typical peak value for specimen hydrated for 24 hours and sheared under a 200 psf normal stress.
(')Roll widths and lengths have a tolerance of±1%.
GSE is a leading manufacturer and marketer of geosynthetic lining products and services.We've
built a reputation of reliability through our dedication to providing consistency of product,price
and protection to our global customers.
Our commitment to innovation,our focus on quality and our industry expertise allow GA5A5w1E
us the flexibility to collaborate with our clients to develop a custom,purpose-fit solution. ENVIRONMENTAL-
For t DURABILITY RUNS DEEP more information on this product and others,please visit us at
GSEworld.com,call 800.435.2008 or contact your local sales office.
i
This Information is provided for reference purposes only and is not intended as a warranty or guarantee.GSE assumes no liability in connection with the use of this Information.
Specifications subject to change without notice.GSE and other trademarks in this document are registered trademarks of GSE Lining Technology,LLC in the United States and certain
foreign countries.REV 13JUN2012

Laverty, Brett
From: Pickett, Matt<[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2018 10:32 PM
To: Laverty, Brett; Hill, Tim S.; Toepfer, John R; John Coon
Cc: Nordgren, Scott R.; McNash, James -geosyntec
Subject: [External]ARA Area 1 Status
Re ort S am. -
Brett,
I checked Area 1 today at about 1430 and though the area was all wet,was in good shape with no exposed ash or
further evidence of sloughing or cracking. I will check again tomorrow and take a look at the other areas as well.
Matt Pickett, P.E.
Lead Engineer- Duke Energy
Asheville and Cliffside CCP System Owner
200 CP&L Drive
Arden, NC 28704
AVL—828.650.7128
CELL—828.216.1398
1

Laverty, Brett
From: Pickett, Matt<[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 6:03 PM
To: Laverty, Brett
Cc: Hill, Tim S.; Toepfer, John R; Nordgren, Scott R.; John Coon
Subject: [External]Airport Inspection 9/14
WTII r email. D. - - s:e-mail as an attachment
- - - .
Report Spam.
Brett,
Today I took a look pre-Florence at the Asheville Airport. Area 1 looked the same as it did when we were out Monday. I
drove by Areas 3 and 4 as well and they looked good with no issues. I will continue monitoring this weekend, although
as the forecast is now, I may not be out there tomorrow if we don't start getting rains until the evening/night. I will send
updates throughout the storm.
Thanks,
Matt Pickett, P.E.
Lead Engineer- Duke Energy
Asheville and Cliffside CCP System Owner
200 CP&L Drive
Arden, NC 28704
AVL—828.650.7128
CELL—828.216.1398
i

T�
1
Laverty, Brett
From: Michael A. Reisman <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 4:09 PM
To: Davidson, Landon; Laverty, Brett
Cc: Lew Bleiweis; John Coon
Subject: [External]Airport 60 Inch RCP
!• hot click links.oropen attachmentsunless - • Send all suspibious,ernailtas - •
Re ort S•am.
Landon—
I know Lew communicated with you in the past week concerning the status of the 60 inch pipe inspection and workplan
while I was out due to a death in my family. I appreciate your understanding in granting a little more time on this under
the circumstances. I just wanted to give you a quick update on what is presently happening. We are now working with a
large consulting firm that works extensively throughout North Carolina on large culverts and inspection programs. They
have done extensive work and projects under NCDOT standards on these types of RCP culverts. They are presently
putting together for us the information you have previously requested concerning the NCDOT standards that we feel are
more appropriate to this matter, in lieu of the NASSCO PACP standards. Although I am out of the office on business
through next week, I am scheduled to hold a telecon with them on Tuesday to ensure that they have all of the bases
covered that you are looking for in order to ensure that your requirements are satisfied. Upon receipt of this
documentation,we will promptly forward that information to you for your consideration. Assuming it satisfies your
requirements,we will immediately move forward with undertaking the evaluation needed. Once complete,we will
quickly establish a workplan and schedule for any recommended work.
Please let me know if I can provide any further information at this time.
Michael A. Reisman, A.A.E.
Deputy Executive Director,
Development&Operations
Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority
E-mail: mreisman(a�flyavl.com
Office: 828-654-3253
Mobile: [phone]
WARNING: E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law"NCGS.Ch.132"and may be
disclosed to third parties by an authorized state official. All e-mail sent to or from The Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority(AVL) business e-mail
system is subject to archiving, monitoring and/or review by AVL personnel.This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is
addressed. If you are not the named addressee,you are not authorized to read, print,retain copy or disseminate this message or any part of it.If you
have received this message in error,please notify the sender immediately either by phone[phone])or reply to this e-mail and delete all copies of
this message.
1

Laverty, Brett
From: Michael A. Reisman <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 2:48 PM
To: Laverty, Brett; Lew Bleiweis; Toepfer, John R; Hill, Tim S.; John Coon
Cc: Davidson, Landon; Risgaard, Jon; Zimmerman, Jay; Wooten, Rick; Pickett, Matt; McNash,
James-geosyntec; Nordgren, Scott R.
Subject: [External] RE: Asheville Airport Area 1 Site Conditions
p-
Reor�tS am.
Brett:
I have been in contact with Duke on this matter. We are aware of your concerns,and will monitor the situation
closely. Work in Area 1 to modify grading and drainage is scheduled to start shortly, and this area will be addressed as
part of that work, unless needed sooner.
Mike Reisman
From: Laverty, Brett<[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday,September 11, 2018 10:33 AM
To: Lew Bleiweis<[e-mail]>;Toepfer,John R<[e-mail]>
Cc: Davidson, Landon<[e-mail]>; Risgaard,Jon<[e-mail]>; Zimmerman,Jay
<[e-mail]>; Wooten, Rick<[e-mail]>; Pickett, Matt<Matt.Pickett@duke-
energy.com>; McNash,James-geosyntec<[e-mail]>; Nordgren,Scott R. <scott.nordgren@duke-
energy.com>; Michael A. Reisman<[e-mail]>
Subject:Asheville Airport Area 1 Site Conditions
Lew and John,
On the last two site inspections (August 10 and September 10),the Division has observed conditions of concern on the
slope of Area 1.The area of concern is located immediately east of the existing temporary rip-rap patch (see attached).
This roughly 1,000 square foot area has been perpetually wet since September 2017 but the level of saturation has
increased over the last month.There also appears to be some slope movement based on observed soil cracking and the
latest geopin survey indicating lateral movement greater than 0.2 feet at H2 and H3 and vertical movement greater than
0.2 feet at H3.
The Division is recommending that the temporary rip-rap patch be extended to stabilize this saturated area as soon as
possible. I relayed my concerns to James McNash, Matt Pickett, and Scott Nordgren while on-site yesterday. Please
provide a response to the Regional Office.
Brett Laverty
Brett Laverty
Hydrogeologist—Asheville Regional Office
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
1

Laverty, Brett
From: Pickett, Matt<[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 2:48 PM
To: Laverty, Brett
Cc: Toepfer, John R; Davidson, Landon; Lew Bleiweis; Nordgren, Scott R.; Hill, Tim S.
Subject: [External] RE: Asheville Airport Area 1 Inspections During Hurricane Florence
it ®e a a ®
Reo;rt ` arn_
Thanks Brett. I'll be making an inspection on Sat and or Sun as you indicated, depending on how intense the rain
is. We'll be in contact through the means you list below as you requested. If everything looks OK, I'll send an e-mail
indicating that info so you know I've been out there and everything is holding up.
Matt Pickett, P.E. I Duke Energy I Ash evil le/Cliffside CCP System Owner I AVL—828.650.7128 1 CELL—828.216.1398
From: Laverty, Brett [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 2:30 PM
To: Pickett, Matt
Cc: Toepfer, John R; Davidson, Landon; Lew Bleiweis; Nordgren, Scott R.
Subject: Asheville Airport Area 1 Inspections During Hurricane Florence
*** Exercise caution. This is an EXTERNAL email. D® NOT open
attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected
email. ***
Matt,
Yesterday, we discussed Duke Energy's response during the hurricane this weekend. You indicated that
inspections at Area 1 will likely be made on Saturday and/or Sunday. I spoke with my supervisor this afternoon
about an emergency call-in number for this weekend. Please contact the North Carolina Emergency
Management Operations Center if there is a failure of the structural fill, failure of the soil cap, and/or
exposure of coal ash. The Regional Office will be contacted by our Pretreatment, Emergency Response, and
Collection Systems (PERCS) unit. Let me know if you have any questions.
Brett Laverty
NC Emergency Management
Main Switchboard - 919-825-2500
24-Hour Operations Center-919-733-3300/1-800-858-0368

Laverty, Brett
From: Laverty, Brett
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 4:15 PM
To: Davidson, Landon ([e-mail])
Cc: Wooten, Rick
Subject: Asheville Airport Area 1 CCR Structural Fill Site Inspection
Attachments: Asheville Airport Area 1 CCR Structural Fill September 10 2018 Site Inspection.pdf
Landon,
Rick and I conducted site inspections on August 10 and September 10. On both inspections,we noted the start of a
potential veneer failure or soil cap failure on the Area 1 slope immediately east of the temporary patch (See attached).
During the inspection this morning,we noted an significant increase (since our last inspection) in soil moisture within
this potential failure area.We are recommending that the temporary rip rap patch be extended to stabilize this
saturated area as soon as possible. I recommend sending this request to John Toepfer at Duke Energy and Lew Bleiweis
at the Asheville Airport.
Brett
Brett Laverty
Hydrogeologist—Asheville Regional Office
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
828 296 4500 office
email: brett.lave rty(cDncd e n r.gov
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
1

Asheville Airport Area • Area • Potential Veneer Failure from • • ' 1 2018 Inspection
•* � .t$'il Imo.. t-. 1 a.�y a �'.e•ew e,'�,. + may..; - .- . • ''�
. •,, tit • --' • �: ,� _
rt li ,.- yid � �.-,r.� J\�. a ,r`R -,* , }.` • '•� • { ,' 't,^• `
r� ✓� a ; � t d fir^ �� �{! I -'� 'f `,t �: =�,��`

Laverty, Brett
From: Laverty, Brett
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2018 2:00 PM
To: Davidson, Landon ([e-mail]); Wooten, Rick
Subject: FW: [External] Sept 5
Attachments: IMG 3320.JPG
Landon,
Just make you aware...on our last site inspection, Rick and I noted possible movement in the soil cap immediately east of
the rip rap patch.This area is extremely wet and Duke noted reportable movement in nearby geopins in August. Pin H2
had 0.338 feet of lateral movement and pin H3 had 0.230 feet of lateral movement and-0.201 feet of vertical
movement.
Brett
Brett Laverty
Hydrogeologist—Asheville Regional Office
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
828 296 4500 office
email: b rett.lave rty(c).ncde n r.gov
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778
WK
^Nothing Compares---,
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Pickett, Matt [ma ilto:[e-mail]]
Sent:Wednesday,September 05, 2018 1:48 PM
To: Laverty, Brett<[e-mail]>
Cc:Toepfer,John R<[e-mail]>; Hill,Tim S. <[e-mail]>; McNash,James-
geosyntec<[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Sept 5
® r. not click links or open attachments u-niess verified�Send alt��uspicfous email:as an attachment to
� Re .ort S arn.
Brett,
I did an inspection of the Area today.The airport did mow the north slope of the east portion,though the left about a 5
foot strip around rip-rap and didn't tough the bench road. The repair is unchanged. The area around the "H"survey
markers was wet and the crack you identified seemed to have grown slightly. It is roughly 3-5" in spots and there seems

Laverty, Brett
From: Pickett, Matt<[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2018 1:48 PM
To: Laverty, Brett
Cc: Toepfer, John R; Hill, Tim S.; McNash, James-geosyntec
Subject: [External] Sept 5
OM External email. •. noftlick Unks or open attaclhments iinless verified.Send.all suspicious email as an,attachment to
Re o.rt S am_
Brett,
I did an inspection of the Area today.The airport did mow the north slope of the east portion,though the left about a 5
foot strip around rip-rap and didn't tough the bench road. The repair is unchanged. The area around the "H" survey
markers was wet and the crack you identified seemed to have grown slightly. It is roughly 3-5" in spots and there seems
to be a visible line horizontally for a few feet. I can't tell if this is bigger than last inspection, or if it is just more visible
since they mowed.
They did not mow on the west fill.
For groundwater sampling next week, I am meeting Synterra at 9 on 9/10 so they can develop one of the piezometers
that Geosyntec didn't develop. We are looking at either 9/13 or 9/14 to perform sampling of the new wells. I will let
you know as soon as it is finalized.
Matt Pickett, P.E.
Lead Engineer- Duke Energy
Asheville and Cliffside CCP System Owner
200 CP&L Drive
Arden, NC 28704
AVL—828.650.7128
CELL—828.216.1398
1

Laverty, Brett
From: Toepfer, John R <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 6:16 AM
To: Laverty, Brett
Cc: Sullivan, Ed M; Czop, Ryan; Pruett, Jeremy J.; Hill, Tim S.; Nordgren, Scott R.; Pickett, Matt;
Williams, Teresa Lynne; Woodward, Tina; Walls, Jason A; Kafka, Michael T.; Hanchey,
Matthew F.; McIntire, Mark D; Culbert, Erin; McNash, James-geosyntec; Michael A. Reisman
([e-mail]); John Coon [e-mail]); Damasceno, Victor-Geosyntec
Subject: [External]August 2018 Surveying Results-Asheville Airport Area I
Attachments: Airport Area 1 Piezometers and Survey Data August 2018.xlsx
Repor#Spam,
Brett- Below and attached is the information from the August 2018 survey at Asheville Airport Area I along with
Geosyntec's observations:
Geosyntec received on August 9, 2018 the coordinate and elevation data collected on August 6, 2018 by McKim &Creed
for the ARA Area 1 slope pin monitoring system (Transects A through N).
For Transects A through J, Geosyntec compared the data against the baseline survey collected October 4, 2017 and
computed the relative movement. For Transects K through N, Geosyntec compared the data against the baseline survey
collected November 15, 2017.
As described previously and provided in the 90-day report,starting with December 12, 2017 survey data, computations
were updated to present the direction of displacement in the lateral (xy) direction as an angle (°). In addition,the
magnitude of displacement is calculated for both the lateral direction and elevation to better distinguish between
possible slope movements and subsidence, respectively. Per corrective action item 7(a) and 7(b) in NCDEQ's Review of
the 90-Day Report Submittal and Required Interim Measures Letter, dated April 30, 2018, Geosyntec revised the slope
pin movement reporting tolerance to 0.2-ft for recently collected data.
Geosyntec's observations are as follows:
• Three slope pins (1-12, H3, and J2)were calculated to have displaced above the survey tolerance (0.2 ft/2.4 in.),
in the lateral direction relative to the baseline survey.
• Three slope pins (138, F8, and 1-13) were calculated to have displaced above the survey tolerance (0.2 ft/2.4 in.)
in elevation relative to the baseline survey.
Based on this information,the slope does not appear to have significantly displaced since the baseline survey
events. Geosyntec recommends that the area adjacent to Slope Pins H1 through H3 be inspected by Duke Energy for
moisture and signs of sloughing(this has been completed in August and reported to DEQ). If the soil cap material
appears saturated and to be sloughing, a temporary stabilization measure similar to other areas on site shall be placed
over the affected area.
John R. Toepfer, P.E.
Duke Energy
1

Lead Engineer
410 S. Wilmington Street/NC15
Raleigh, NC 27601
919-546-7863 phone
919-632-3714 cell
919-546-3669 fax
2

Geosyntec � , 1300 South Mint , Suite 30
Charlotte,NC 28203
PH 704.227.0840
consultants www.geosyntec.com
20 August 2018
Ms.Melissa King
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Energy,Mineral&Land Resources -Land Quality Section
Asheville Regional Office
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa,NC 28778
Subject: Erosion and Sedimentation Control Permit Application
Area 1 East Cell Grading Plan
Asheville Regional Airport
Asheville,North Carolina
Dear Ms.King:
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC (Geosyntec) prepared the enclosed Erosion and
Sedimentation Control (E&SC) Plan permit application to North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), Division of Energy, Mineral & Land Resources (DEMLR) —
Land Quality Section (LQS), on behalf of our client Duke Energy Progress, LLC (Duke Energy).
This submittal provides the E&SC Plan to support the proposed temporary storm water drainage
improvements at the Asheville Regional Airport (ARA) located in Buncombe County, North
Carolina near Asheville. The proposed storm water drainage improvements are for the top deck of
the Area 1 structural fill (Area 1) and are considered temporary while design plans to retrofit the
existing soil cap are developed.
Duke Energy holds the permit for Area 1 at ARA, formerly referred to as the Distribution of
Residual Solids (DORS) Permit (WQ0000020), issued by the NCDEQ Division of Water
Resources (DWR) via renewal on 2 September 2015 that includes the Structural Fill Projects at
ARA. Duke Energy identified wet areas and a small scarp along the north slope and at the base of
Area 1 during inspection activities in September 2017. Duke Energy notified NCDEQ DWR and
scheduled a formal inspection on 15 September 2017. NCDEQ subsequently issued a set of phased
requirements(7-,30-, and 90-day requirements),which were implemented by 29 December 2017.
On 30 April 2018,Duke Energy received comments on the 90-day submittal and the Engineering
Analysis Report from NCDEQ DWR, which required the submittal of a grading plan to
temporarily redirect surface water on the Area 1 top deck to reduce erosion in the northern slope
GC6463/ARA_EastCellStormWater_GradingPlan_ESCP Submittal
engineers I scientists I innovators

Ms.Melissa King
20 August 2018
Page 2
soil cap in the east structural fill cell(East Cell). As such,Duke Energy proposes to grade a portion
of the East Cell top deck to facilitate drainage and limit erosion of the northern slope while a
permanent retrofit of the soil cap is designed. This E&SC Plan permit application package
contains: (i)E&SC Plan drawings; (ii)E&SC technical specifications; (iii) applicable stormwater
calculations; (iv) Financial Responsibility/Ownership (FRO) form, and (v) property deed, which
are provided as separate attachments. Duke Energy requests an express review and both the
standard and express review fees will be provided during the express review meeting. Duke
Energy will contact NCDEQ DEMLR to arrange an express review meeting within the next week.
The attached E&SC Plan and supporting documents provide details for this application. If you
have any questions or need clarification with regards the information provided, please contact
James McNash, P.E. at imenash(@jzeosyntee.com or 704-227-0855, or John Toepfer, P.E. (Duke
Energy) [e-mail] or 919-546-7863 at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
J Ces D.McNash, P.E.(Nc)
Project Engineer
Attachments: l. Permit Drawings: Area 1 -Area 1 East Cell Grading Plan -Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan;
2. E&SC Technical Specifications;
3. Technical Memorandum—Stormwater Calculations
4. FRO Form; and
5. Asheville Regional Airport Property Deed.
Copies to: Duke Energy: Tim Hill; Matt Pickett; Scott Nordgren; John Toepfer, Ken
Karably; Michael Kafka
Asheville Regional Airport: Lew Bleweis; Michael Reisman
GC6463/ARA_EastCellStormWater_GradingPlan_ESCP Submittal
engineers I scientists I innovators

Attachments

Attachment 1
Permit Drawings Area 1 East Cell Grading
Plan - Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 8
PERMIT DRAWINGS
AREA 1 EAST CELL GRADING PLAN
A EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN A
ASHEVILLE REGIONAL AIRPORT
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT NO. GC6463
AUGUST 2018
„t Mi D7Ti9I'aN'1 t r ll/ l
DRAWING LIST
ixnu City'') i'— •LiinenwlY: .n _ 1`r 1 k�j 1'l�i• 'il SA S v��sl, � I(
tY2 s n y Lv J
t '• s NUMBER TITLE ,
Ic r� 4fi+p,crT
1 TITLE SHEET t>�yr1yf }�'1 cxF a `\
Smserg9e i _ turnm .y %c IS •r r .:�� �� s L tlY'3'
G� er.i 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
i s f E}akfE � ''1' � `• .l�,r s? ��l .� {rl Y ..r�r1�.rt
3 GRADING AND EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN (rt,yL
F °r'Iv'V. r'Tj
t _ to Lrsl�. 'rJ 4 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS I :?� �✓afs`
Y - ASh bfil-'7o ' M Z.� (.yl C�t ���' 1 J�TE lam.
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS II �ti i
Jrerekr R�?s lrVf{e• .`\r CiJ l t'r \�i' I 'S1 r�: ZS _��
Oab �/ha L
w`n1G7G•NfOfq! cr 'S vSn�ntdHe finale }tl 4 t1{t��°�Y� R1oPg�YS�f �
'�uam _ Y-�xA ''d ll rl lr `S r ! ramr
€�-nkiiD; _
c.F — � 1
'. HigtdarA_�... raf4le l< n ) - � � � ' r4i ,'s� �j�1 S4 11�� -i/( 1 I C:BOOUNDAKY'?�Y
t � s4,
y .\ �•' ¢ - ,a. f t..Yrr 5- �_Ji ,.i�l rt t1 Y �s r„�Jy. •..-
ttrtr'ngr: s - S pa
nanbuig -
Greer vffItj
f
{a �' . -�sr ��� SITE �� �,v f .•.w,,+��3,c�.� ,�s�i ��a- �, l�r-1/�.'
nT„?tt m Uni s '� -i. 71 _ �`L1`J tl`' •�s-,,: r Ll fr l• x IJ�'�_ r �� ("
'CRw1tOi ♦ r Y Y 1 \ J J r :� t!.,I f.
i `i, ��� Simpynvill• ,��� � 3 a � 17 l � 'y. l�`�,
�...
2010 Microsoft Carporau�n®2 pHOSE
SOURCE:MICROSOFT,BING MAPS OZ
SOURCE:USGS WEBSITE https://store.usgs.gov
VICINITY MAP ; USGS MAP
SCALE:1-20 MILES H 1, 11\ , SCALE:1"=5,000 FEET
i
p _ •� `` ap ayk `' t LT D
C+4".�y-y ` •�1 �• s,� PROPERTY
� '�` ` S E4 efJJ BOUNDARY
SOURCE:USGS WEBSITE https://store.usgs.gov
LOCATION MAP
SCALE:1'=2 MILES
E E
g PREPARED FOR:
REV DATE DESGRIPTON DRN APP
a C Geos tee®
®UKE DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC DETAIL NUMBER Yn DUKE
400 SOUTH TRYON STREET DETAILSPRESENRAWING ON HABOVE CODSUIIffi2ITE300 ,PC ENERGY®
a ENERGY, DETAIL IS PRESENTED 1300 SOl1TH MINTSTREET,SURE tS F
CHARLOTTE, NC 28202 USA O PUCENSENO-.05C0�
PROGRESS DETAIL NUMBER NCDCENSEN0:C35p0 PROGRESS
TITLE:
DRAWING ON WHICH 4 DETAIL TITLE SHEET
ABOVE DETAIL WAS
FIRST REFERENCED 3 TITLE OF DETAIL PROJECT: PERMIT DRAWINGS
scALE:1=z AREA 1 EAST CELL GRADING PLAN-EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN
EXAMPLE DETAIL NUMBER 4 PRESENTED ON SITE: ASHEVILLE REGIONAL AIRPORT
PREPARED BY: 1300 SOUTH MINT STREET, SUITE 300 DRAWING N0.6 WAS REFERENCED FOR
P THE FIRST TIME ON DRAWING NO.3. ASHEVILLE,NORTH CAROLINA p
Geos�m tee'- CHARLOTTE, NC 28203 USA ABOVE SYSTEM ALSO APPLIES TO SECTION IDENTIFICATIONS. uI DESIGN BY: KRF DATE: AUGUST2018
�/ L L DETAIL IDENTIFICATION LEGEND Cn rO
J✓ PHONE: [phone] DRA,�BY: JWG PROJECT NO, GC6463
.sb•wx �=O•QO4ESS,Q���
SEAL
D Ca hun6sG _ _
3$ consultants of NC, 1 .C. GNEck�D BY: JDM FILE: GC6463.07D010
o rnrsavoe ,ssOEE1 L
WAugust
'•�NE�' REVIEWED BY: VMD DRAWING NO.:
g YD Y c
PERMIT DRAWINGS—NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 17 Aag Lzols APPROVED By'. JDM OF t
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2 3 4 5 6 7 B
X� ' i i r \ \ r�t r `1 �'1��� .I I m � / �/ ! , i �,• " \ `.\J) ,� l I f 1 )si' (`/%�71191'�( � �-�a ' ,:, �� T , - � -
� �X ao i ���� I �� � I � � � •� � �� ��fl(11��11111w ��i�' �;,� I° � � -* � ��
� ///` ` N 1�PROPERTY BOUIJDARY� s�
'4 ; <` w m9.6 '� I .�. / 2'i� \ .� .l i IAREf174L0 TION
1 / 1 �
0 100• 200' ', DLO a p
;
m - \ I'� f II 4 2 l'X 147 I ' 2 U \ '� � � ' SCALE IN FEET -'•'�'�.,�_ �
AKUZ
• •P -
z
ALVIN
B All
,• J /� / � l\I\\\ ////111 //1 ` i '\ ,� EvD2 r., __P7��r.� _r.�r
SOURCE:MICROSOFT,SING MAPS KEY MAP
REVIEW BOUNDARY(NOTE e) PROPERTY BOUNDARY ,
``r`�• Qe �� ,5 jr(17 COMPUANCE BOUNDARY(NOTE 9) (50TE 4) 1 .+,\�\\ SCALE:1"=2006'
EXISTING RIP RAP
\ � t 1�\ t /� '.iWi1AV .STABILIZATION J \ \
t' k / f f Ijf/r�!t1 MW i r_ / l \\ > \\\ LEGEND
IUI�IIiIlI \ \\ __—
!'7 \� \\ PROPERTY APPROX
EXISTING FENCE LINE \ REVIEW BOUNDARY
\\• \ �l %�\ I I '�Il�rr 1 Il l f v�i - � i--�'� \ \ �� \\� '
J �� �i/ � � COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY LIMIT(NOTE 3)
C •��. \ 111 I / / '�.!,' / PZ"< -__----_ LIMIT OF CCR(APPROX) C
�.-� 4r,��� (( ((� / J�� :e //� A����� V•� A —x x— FENCE LINE
2183 ap �� ` UNPAVED ROAD/TRAILSX � T(T�C /� WATER
V� A TREE LINE
N�M't5'(S�� �iF• �>.�: � \�\\.`� 'r t` \\ � /-"ti.�"�-. BRUSH LINE -
`,5 \ \ / �y� r,,��;h. � �,,�,•. ,��� / � / `\ �� \ F.,`, � 2145 EXISTING ELEVATION CONTOUR
F7 N ,+` 5111\\ 11 -•^'s,�' 3+,"�•s„1;,. 2181.1 }.
FT ,t\ 1 Jp��,\`—-ram—J�' �\/ / G, �. / / ^� \`\ II/} \ /r t X 750.9 SPOT ELEVATION
� I �1":w°i - J / ./ \ \\+i l 1 IN � p -o- POWER POLE
L•I \\'( \ \ 1�� —ter_ ZP�~ �' `/EXISTING RIP RAP //S
�\ EXISTING RIP �^ / /�� y� RUNWAY LIGHT
RAP CHANNEL —�` /,�/ / \r/
/EXISTING SECURIT`// y ( `.� -• s t°p 1/// Y/I \` -f- LIGHT POLE
9 F7� \�����- (TiG--F •` 2 \ FENCE LINE 71°a N� t 2194.6
ExE 1 �/ I AAI 9R ,v \`� RUNWAY LIGHT
i , J. � J y� >\
U� h \ \ l .,�. \ -,// \ /C N0' ) / 2185.7 � i SIGN
0 L•1 \ �`� _ �• i ' 0 POST
$$$ / & GP S CONTROL POINT
❑ 1 1 _ 1 ; TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY LIM LET
DROP IN
N 636000_ � �,.-� t\. � ,� . ( (NOTE 3 '1l -�—" 1 /
ql r MWJ i \ o CATCH BASIN
`,,\ ql (ABANDONED) —- / _\ /
R i 1 U// /• r PZ-2 PIEZOMETER
1 / ❑ \r r Q t��_' I �, 50,\ / �/ —.�_\.�-, /'\ \\�( 2 MONITORING WELL
INCLINOMETER
SOIL CORRIDOR ` �+ 41,
l NRCS SOIL DELINEATION
� d• o I
"o n
LIMITOFCCRi+1`h
AREA 1 EAST FILL (APPROX)(NOTE 5)
i
E v� iI \\ IJ � k }7 AREA 1 WEST FI j 11 ,1 L u EXISTING 60"0 RCP // �\
s i I I 1NOTES:
-1. COORDINATES PROVIDED IN NORTH CAROLIA STATE PLANE IN Dare DESCPJPnon Dw� APP
TnZ\ f TERMS OF NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983(AD83)AND D
❑ `1 I `+ % 1, / �I \ OFE 985(AV 88j TERMS OF FT NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM Geosyntec DUKE
SOILS MAP LEGEND E. 1 /1 / \ 2 TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS PROVIDED BY MCKIM AND CREED ��
z x I �\ BASEDONSURVEYS DATED ON4OCTOBER2017AN01 COI1SRErdRLSOF NO,PC ENERGY
2 MAP UNIT MAP UNITNAME 1/ \/ NOVEMBER 2017. ,aoC sovrN MINTTTE,STREET,SUITE Soo
CkC2 CLIFTON CLAY LOAM,8 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES,MODERATELY ERODED I 1( i CHARLOTTE,Nc 7.084 USA
3 �� \ 3. SURVEY O THE GUCEN ENO.:"S PROGRESS
CUB CLIFTON-URBAN LAND COMPLEX,2 TO 8 PERCENT SLOPES / ® CREED SURVEYS PROVIDED D AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY FLOWN 11 Nc ucENSE no.:cas°o
MW-<may/- 2/r, DE EMBER 2009 AND GROUND CONTROL SURVEYS PREPARED BY :
Z� sANBORN,LLc. EXISTING CONDITIONS
CUD CLJFTON-URBAN LAND COMPLEX,15 TO 30 PERCENT SLO
W CUC CLIFTON-URBAN LAND COMPLEX,8T015 PERCENT SLOPES U I
4.PES 1 ,zy, PROPERTY BOUNDARY DELINEATED FROM SANBORN,LLC AND
1 \ \ SHALL BE CONFIRMED BY THE CONTRACTOR.
&D2 EVARD-COWEE COMPLEX,15 TO 30 PERCENT SLOPES,MODERATELY ERODED ��• • * PROJECT:
.f I X � � 15. LIMITS OF CCR SCALED FROM HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS SHOULD PERMIT DRAWINGS
— EVARD-COWEE-URBAN LAND COMPLEX,30 TO 50 PERCENT SLOPES '0 j �Y BECONSIDEREDAPPROXIMATE,AND SHOULD BE FIELD ZRIFIED- AREA 1 EAST CELL GRADING PLAN-EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN
(/j 6. SOIL DELINEATIONS OBTAINED FROM NATURAL RESOURCES TaB TATE LOAM,2T08PERCENTSLOPES �• \ _ / 1 s.•x1 / CONSERVATION SERVICE(NRCS)WEB SOIL SURVEY,CURRENT AS srrE` ASHEVILLE REGIONAL AIRPORT
y F TaC TATE LOAM,8 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES O l OF 26 SEPTEMBER 2017. F
\ / ASHEVILLE,NORTH CAROLINA
E TmB TATE-URBAN LAND COMPLEX,2 TO 8 PERCENT SLOPES I ` r 7• THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE FRENCH BROAD RIVER
\J _ +\TmC TATE-URBAN LAND COMPLEX,8 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES N, WATERSHED. DESIGN BY: KRF DATE: AUGUST 2018
w ON 25 JULY 2018.Ud UDORTHENTS,LOAMY s�" s / / 8. PROPERTY LINES AND OWNER INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM .`SH DAR r�ri
BUNCOMBE COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM(GIS) `?:••y:OC� DRAWN BY: JWO PROJECTNO.: GC6463
° n7^ 0,,,>4,,,•a, :=Q:°fE srOti��y
e6 UhE UDORTHENTS-URBAN LAND COMPLEX,,2 TO SO PERCENT SLOPES
�B. REVIEW NANO COMPLIANCE BOUNDARIES PROVIDED BY SYNTERRA - 0111fP = cNECKED BY: JDM FILE: GC8463.07D020
CORPORATION ON 16 JULY 2018.
€w wvuruxe
3y �ecarsys,o � �, �- VMD DRAWING NO.:
PERMIT DRAWINGS-NOT F CONSTRUCTION, 17 Augusts2018 ' wFSp wa"
NBII• APPROVED BY: JDM OF
2 3 4 5 5 7 8

1 - 2 \ 3 4 5 ( 6 I 7 6
LEGEND
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING:
1. NO GRADING OR OTHER LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY SHALL BE PERFORMED UNTIL ALL ---- PROPERTY(APPROX)
JURISDICTIONAL STREAMS AND WETLANDS HAVE BEEN FIELD-LOCATED,FLAGGED,AND
REVIEW BOUNDARY
VERIFIED(THROUGH USACE JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION PROCESS). -
2. ESTABLISH CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE TO THE SKEIN ACCORDANCE WITH DETAIL ON 1W I � 21 /�S �v ( �� COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY
DRAWING 4. 4(�J
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY LIMIT(NOTE 3)
3. INSTALL SEDIMENT FENCE OR STRAW WATTLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH DETAILS 6 OR 7 ON W
096. \ \ m Z ----------- LIMIT OF CCR(APPROX)
4. MINIMIZE AREA OF DISTURBANCE TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE AT ANY ONE TIME.
I
' _ PROPERTY BOUNDARY 0 60' 120' -X X- FENCE LINE A
A DRAWING4.
(NOTE 4) 1
S. MODIFY INACCSECURITY FENCE WITHGRADEDETAIL
LOW POINT TO DRAWING
S. NORTH TOWARD SECURITY FENCE 1 3 4 SCALE IN FEET UNPAVED ROAD/TRAILS
OUTLETS IN ACCORDANCE WITH DETAIL 11 ON DRAWING S.
_ t WATER
6. GRADE AREA AND CONSTRUCT TEMPORARY CHANNELS
ACCORDANCE WITH THE GRADING PLAN AND DETAILS WITH SELECTED CHANNEL LINING IN TREE LINE
�� L i
ON DRAWING 5. /- / ; \ , I• \ ^' ' '^"^"^
7. PLANINSTALLAND
DETAILS
ILS 8 A D 10 OUTLET DRAWTABWZATION STRUCTURES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS \ 2090 ---✓"-�-+ BRUSH LINE
PLAN AND DETAILS 8 AND 10 ON DRAWING 5. Ify //
MW-1?-�..,�,1 / 1 1 \1 2145 EXISTING ELEVATION CONTOUR
8. INSTALL CULVERTS WITHIN EACH CHANNEL TO AL LOW CROSSING OF ONGOING MAINTENANCE X750.9 SPOT ELEVATION
ACTIVITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH DETAILS ON DRAWING 5.
9. GRADEISMOOTH THEAREA BOUNDED BETWEEN THE CHANNELS AND EXISTING SECURITY �/ ` ` O POWER POLE
FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS PLAN TO FACILITATE DRAINAGE TO THE CHANNELS. REVIEW BOUNDARY(NOTE 20)
CONTRACTOR SHALL LIMIT GRADING WITHIN 5-FT OF PIEZOMETERS. COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY(NOTE 20) ^� .y RUNWAYLIGHT
10. INSTALL SLOPE STABILIZATION AS REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DETAIL 5 ON DRAWING 4. \ EXISTING FENCE LINE �r�- LIGHT POLE
\ j/. 1 RUNWAYLIGHT
11. SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3 HORIZONTAL AB 1 VERTICAL(BE TETHAT HAVE BEEN DISTURBED OUTLET 111 /?ry
AND HAVE NOT BEEN MATTING
S SOON
SHALL BE TEMPORARILY STABILIZED WITH I 10 STABILIZATION J �,-/ \ m i SIGN
ANDINEROSION CONTROL WITHIN
GALENDA D PRACTICABLE,PRIOR TO-DISTU BIND CTIN EVENT, 5 PLACE ADDITIONAL 6 x 6 \ Z pNa R B AND IN ANY EVENT WITHIN 7 CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE LAST LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY.ALL STRUCTURE '�m 0 POST
OTHER DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE PROVIDED TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT STABILIZATION AS ,y/ AREA OF RIP RAP A v�
MW-2A UPSLOPE OF OUTLET U' to
SOON AS PRACTICABLE,PRIOR TO A SIGNIFICANT RAIN EVENT,AND IN ANY EVENT,WITHIN 14 / / GPS CONTROL POINT
CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE LAST LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY. I\-1A / SEDIMENT FENCE r'-�- \ Ym °•
LET
12. INSTALL SEEDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH DETAILS 2 AND 3 ON DRAWING 4. e / /- ��.�`�� \ \ • CATCHDROP BASIN
�, --� � e CATCH BASIN
13 AFTER
EORSTRH WATTLE BEEN PERMANENTLY STABILIZED,REMOVE INSTALLED SEDIMENT FENCE , 4 ' -� 9�i// -��PZ6 `�-. CONTRACTORTO LIMIT GRADING I PZ2
14. REMOVE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE ,1 fj � / ,/ / ETER
�//STING RIP RAP (THIN\nOF PIEZOMETER(TYP) 1MW-3 MONITORING
J 'l1� �///�j� , 2 MONITORING WELL
CONSTRUCTION NARRATIVE /l y.°/ /a+r� / SLOPE DRAIN• 5 `\ \
�/' ` {r.�"� . -� �2t46`04_1\� �� ® INCLINOMETER
THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION IS TO:(i)MODIFY EXISTING STORM WATER DRAINAGE ALONG THE +' -+^'�`2%y�i'/� /�S.Y - �. } t' 4
TOP DECK OF AREA 1 STRUCTURAL FILL EAST CELL TO REDUCE EROSION AND LIMIT MAINTENANCE; •` ' %"" `r`"� �� ) t l 2142- PROPOSED ELEVATION CONTOUR(FEET)
Ii)INSTALL TEMPORARY DIVERSION STRUCTURES(I.E.,CHANNELS AND CULVERTS)TO LIMIT STORM " d ` 2146'17 7 Loo
WATER RUNOFF FROM THE NORTH AREA 1 SLOPE;AND Ili ESTABLISH VEGETATION WITHIN THE.. \ / - - 7 SEDIMENT FENCE LIMB OF DISTURBANCE
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE. ) '` /pZ5/� TEMPORARY / /. \� - q
�Y J i.�'ram' Z �STRAW WATTLE OR �(NOTE 6)
` 1 +°' l/���� STABILIZATION -��y'� + SEDIMENT FENCE
t / rM1 ACCESS PATH MEASURE _'y I
OUTLET
10 NOTES:
STABILZATE 1. COORDINATES PROVIDED IN NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE IN TERMS OF NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983
%• 5 TS PS MU I -STRUCTURE 5
�° \ } , ` / T•P � 2140.98 O 4 q x, (NAD83)AND ELEVATIONS IN TERMS OF FT NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988(NAVD88).
RECP-1�-RECP `+� \�\��>Q� 1 I 2. TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS PROVIDED BY MCKIM AND CREED BASED ON SURVEYS DATED ON 4 OCTOBER 2017 AND
1NOVEMBER 2017. C
GAT ��// f /,.•R'- .� O t„a'+ 'Z 21 +� �\\ \� / 3. SURVEY INFORMATION OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF THE MCKIM AND CREED SURVEYS PROVIDED BY AERIAL
- ;+ l/ /PZ'3 o- 2148'4 k� l PHOTOGRAPHY FLOWN II DECEMBER 2009 AND GROUND CONTROL SURVEYS PREPARED BY SANBORN,LLC.
�` (�..,.�•�...." ���� \ ,�,'�� __��„� , �f / ,tisp ��\\ 4. PROPERTY BOUNDARY DELINEATED FROM SANBORN,LLC AND SHALL BE CONFIRMED BY THE CONTRACTOR.
5• FIELD VER FI DSCALED FROM HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS,SHOULD BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE,AND SHOULD BE
✓• (/ \ =iT STRAW WATTLE OR �/ 0'^ e Mi4r. / ,SLOPE DRAIN ' 6. STRAW WATTLES OR SILT FENCE OFFSET FROM LOD FOR CLARITY.
r 5 f ---- •"'�� SEDIMENT FENCE }/ TS PS MU .1,'.a `.V 5
7. CHANNEL SHALL BE RELINED WITH VEGETATION,GEOMEMBRANE,OR CLOSURE TURFO AS SELECTED BY DUKE
• '� �-_= RECP/( ) - -$-PECP / ENERGY AND THE OWNER
/I �o��rr? �g•.v c..���-- _--.___.=� /, 6 7
1 n / o �• S. SOIL STABILIZATION SHALL BE ACHIEVED ON ANY AREA OF A SITE WHERE LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES HAVE
� 4 4 TN015"RCP CULVERTS '\> \ 1 TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY CEASED ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE:
f/, + 13 i) ALL PERIMETER DIKES SWALES,DITCHES PERIMETER SLOPES,AND ALL SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3 HORIZONTAL
/ / i// (PS)MU TOIVERTICAL(3H:1�SHALLBEPROVIDED TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT STABILIZATION WITH GROUND COVER
1 AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE BUT IN ANY EVENT WITHIN 7 CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE LAST LAND-DISTURBING
EXISTING RIP RAP /+�' DRAINAGE CHANNEL e p ^ / ACTIVITY.
\\ �•'+
IXISTING RIP PZ-11 J,2 / '� (NOTE 7) 5 'Y
/ ii) ALL OTHER DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE PROVIDED TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT STABILIZATION WITH GROUND
\ RAPCH DRAINAGE CHANNEL
ANNEL- +/ ,�a ad y COVERAS SOON AS PRACTICABLE
,�, ✓,'-i- •
�'•'• 1 D 2 a q 7) 1 9. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION SECTION Ot 57 73.
�• EXISTING GATE �~ b•` ,y.,a o /(NOTE
p / .SL o // 10. VEGETATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION SECTION 32 92 19.
D
PZ_-2 EXISTING SECURITY/ 18"RCP CULVERT /� // 7{{{)))\
\\ 1 CONSTRARYIGRAVEL- „1l + FENCE LINE 1S /�1/ ///\• \ 17. THIS PROJECT IS WITHIN THE FRENCH BROAD RIVER BASIN.
\ CONSTRUCTION / ♦°' i
ENTRANCE/EXIT 1 LOD + 2142.83 3 / 12. TOTAL DISTURBED AREA IS 3.45 ACRES.
/ ten^7 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY LIMIT
(NOTE 3) 13. MICHAELA REISMAN,AA.EIS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE AND CAN BE CONTACTED AT 828-684-2226 x13253.
14. RECEIVING WATER IS THE FRENCH BROAD RIVER,WHICH IS CLASSIFIED AS A PERENNIAL STREAM.
\ 2148.13
Loo Too 15. TOTAL AREA TO BE STABILIZED WITH VEGETATION IS 28 ACRES.
. / / 1\GRADE LOW POINT TO ��/o \ 16. PROJECT ENTRANCE IS LOCATED AT 35"26'45.74"NORTH 82'32'33.77"WEST.
�\ A, GRADE
I /I'm 1 DRAINNORTH TOWARD ' �' jr 7 ... ASHEVILLE REGIONALAIRPORTSHALL INSPECT EBSC FEATURES AS REQUIRED WITHIN THE ISSUED PERMIT USING
SECURIN FENCE OUTLETS SECURITY FENCE /_\{) THE SELF-INSPECTION FORM LOCATED ON THE NCDEQ DEMLR WEBSITE
\ \ �I• 1 1 TS PS MU' MODIFICATION /// \ \ (HTTP:/IDEQ,NC.GOV/ABOUTiDIIASIONS/ENERGY-MINERAL-LAND-RESOURCES/EROSION-SEDIMENT-CONTROUFORMS).
18. ASHEVILLE REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY SHALL CONTACT NCDEQ DEMLR ASHEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE AT
N6 111 11 /1 1 /� / ��• 828.296.4500 AT LEAST48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY.
RE
DENTIFIED ADJACENT TO THE
IT
(ABANDONED) f \� 2°. REVI VERIFEW ANDICOMPLATO NCE BOUNDARIES PROVED DIBY SYN7ERRA CORPORATION ONR6 JULy218 ALL BE FIELD
Jt SECURITY FENCE1 ` \\\(//
MODIFICATION 1 / 1
21. STORM WATER DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN HEREIN ARE TEMPORARY AND SHALL BE RE-EVALUATED AND
RE-DE
E , � � 11 / � ; �•. � � RE-DESIGNED DURINGA PERMANENT SOIL CAP SYSTEM DESIGN. E
1 0 N
R DATE OESCWPTION DRN APP
y GATE 1 ; ; AREA 1 EAST FILL / Geosyntec® DUKE
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL SYMBOLOGY 1 1 / \ tsoosourHMWnStTRE=tSOONC,PC twn ENERGY®
DESCRIPTION SYMBOL 1 EXISTING 60"O RCP / CHARLOTTE,NC 29M USA
PNONE:7WM7.0NO PROGRESS
NCIICENSENC,z 3 0
a
SEDIMENT FENCE OR STRAW WATTLE 4 � -x-x-x-x-x-x-x- ~' AREA 1 WEST FILL f, 1 1 TRLE:
w 2 O / 11 \ j ` GRADING AND EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN
W TEMPORARY SEEDING TS
4 / \\� PROJECT:
PERMIT DRAWINGS
PERMANENT SEEDING a Ps 50, 50 AREA 1 EAST CELL GRADING PLAN-EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN
LIMIT OFCCR(APPROX) 5�: ASHEVILLE REGIONAL AIRPORT
ROLLED EROSION CONTROL PRODUCTS 4 REcp BECP ��_ SOIL CORRIDOR
F 1 (NOTES) / ASHEVILLE,NORTH CAROLINA F
w OUTLET STABILIZATION STRUCTURE 6 �/ DESIGN BY: KRF DATE: AUGUST2018
`ESN CARP�7
sg 4 `P,.••' DRAWN BY: JWO PROJECT NO.: GC6463
MULCHING
e MU s�onnl�e�r����I '=o:oFessrof-7
=� 4 O :A?SEAL ' CHECKED BY: JDM FILE: GC6463.07DO30
_ OEIL2
?a TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/EXITe •p V� .•E4hLHEt?•� -BY: VMD DRAWING No.:
0 4 ¢wvawe '��•�D Y N1����`•
oy PERMIT DRAWINGS-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 17AnzDjs
PPPROVED BV: JDM OF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6
I

2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Seeding mixture Table 6.14a
Species Rate(Iblacro) Mulching Materials and Application Rates
German millet 40 Material Rate Per Acre Quality Notes
/ In the Piedmont and Mountains.a small-stemmed Sudangrass may be Organic Mulches '
substituted at a fate Of 501blaae. SEEDING MIXTURE Straw 1'-2 tam Dry,unchopped, Should Come from wheat or Oats;
unweathered;avoid spread by hand or machine;must
Seeding dates COMMON NAME SOTANICALHAME RATE PURPOSE OPTIMAL PLANTING DATES Weeds, be tacked down-
Mountair-May16-Aug.15 (tancRE1 Wood chips 5.6tam Air dry Treat with 12lbsnitrogen/ton.Apply
A \O Piedmont-Ma 15 VIRGINIAWILD
•O Y -Aug.9 ELYMUSVIRGINICUS ] PRIMARY STABILPATION a!1-SIISAND]/15-e115 Wlfh mulch blower,chip Farljler,Of
CoasMl Pfairt-Apt,15-Aug.15 RYEA
rh/h BIG BLUESTEM ANDROPGON GERADIII EARL 7 PRIMARY STABILIZATION t2n-5/1 b/hand.Not for use in fine turf.
9011 amendments Wood fiber 0.5-1 tons Also re(emed to as wootl cellulose.
/ Follow recommendabone of soil tests Gf apply 2.000 Ib/acrs ground PANICUM VIRGATUM r BtACKWELLOR y be hydroseeded.Do not use In
SWITCHGRASS 7 PRIMARY STABILIZATION t211-M1 May
SHELTER hot,
'f agdcultuml limestone antl 7501Wacre 10-10-10 fertilizer. dry weather.
P t�
Mulch Bark 35 cubic yards Air dry„shredded or Apply with mulch blower,chip
6'min hammer-milled,or chips. handle,or by hand Do not use
Jr Or a mulch anchoring
straw.A disk trawbyesset neatly
netting, asphalt tack
ore ass,anchoringhod.Adisk with blades set nearlysmaigMranbe
2-3'- Ary used as a mulch anchoring tool. Corn stalks 46 tons Cut or shredded in 46 Apply with mulch blower or by hand.
coarse a re ate \�` in.lengths, Not for use in fine turf.
99 9 sl MAINTENANCE NOTE: Sedcea 13 tons Green or dry;should
Malntonanco
RefeNlizeif growth is not fully adequate.Reseed.referillize and mulch 1. FOR MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS,SEE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION SECTION 32 92 19. lespedeza contain mature seed.
MAINTENANCE NOTES: Immediiately following erosion or other damage.
DETAIL NOTES:
seedbeanng
stems
1. MAINTAIN THE GRAVEL PAD IN A CONDITION TO PREVENT MUD OR SEDIMENT FROM LEAVING THE MAINTENANCE NOTES: 1. SEEDING RATES TAKEN FROM NCDEQ EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL Nets and Mats'
TABLES 6.11.a AND 6.11.6. Jute net Cover area Heavy,uniform;woven Withstands waterfiow.Bestwhen
CONSTRUCTION SITE.THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH 2-INCH STONE. 1.RESEED AND MULCH AREAS WHERE SEEDLING EMERGENCE
IS POOR OR WHERE EROSION OCCURS AS SOON AS 2. VIRGINIA WILD RYE RECOMMENDED FOR PERMANENT SEEDING DURING SUMMER SEEDING SEASON.IF SEEDED IN
2 , , of single jute yarn. used with organic mulch.
AFTER EACH RAINFALL,INSPECT STRUCTURE USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT AND CLEAN OUT AS NECESSARY. POSSIBLE. SPRING,BIG BLUESTEM OR SWITCHGRASS ARE RECOMMENDED GRASS VARIETIES FOR PERMANENT SEEDING. Fiberglass net Cover area Withstands waterFlo-N.Beel when
3.IMMEDIATELY REMOVE ALL OBJECTIONABLE MATERIALS SPILLED,WASHED,OR TRACKED ONTO 2.DO NOT MOW. 3. SEED VARIETIES ARE RECOMMENDED FOR THE NCDEQ MOUNTAINS REGION. used with organic mulch.
Excelsior Cover area Wthetands watediow.
B PUBDCROADWAYS. 3.PROTECT FROM TRAFFIC AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE (wood fiber)
net B
DETAIL 2 DETAIL 3 DETAIL Fiberglass roving 0.5-1 tam Continuous fibers of Apply with a compressed air elector.
drawn glass bound Tack with emulsified asphalt at a
3 TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/EXIT 3 TEMPORARY SEEDING 3 PERMANENT SEEDING together wihanon toxic ate of 25-35 ga1/1,000 sqR
SOURCE:NCDEQ (NOTE agent.
SOURCES):NCDEQ SOURCE:NCDEQ Chemical Stabilizersr
" Aquatain follow Not beneficial to plant growth.
Aerospray manufacturers
Curasd AK specifications
Petroset SB
Tema Tack
Crust 500
Gemqua 743
M-145
'Refer to Practice No..6.30,Grass Lined Channels.
'Use of trade names does not imply endorsement of product.
6"OVERLAP
I-�-d d� tl-�{ MAINTENANCESPECT ALL MULCHES
(MIN) 5) _
C ''�j r _ -' _ F=l I WOOD STAKE(NOTE 2) 12"9 STRAW l2.(M•� 1.INSPECT ALL MtiLCHES PERIODICALLY,AND AFTER RAINSTORMS TO CHECK FOR RILL
v �J _• I� - ^^ A ^^ VyATTLE (NOTE 3) EROSION,DISLOCATION OR FAILURE WHERE EROSION IS OBSERVED,APPLY ADDITIONAL C
3. ^ MULCH.
i U -
' �10"
10 / n/i .y I- - - 21F WASHOUT OCCURS,REPAIR THE SCOPE GRADE,RESEED AND REINSTALL MULCH.
SNG SOILNEW 3.CONTINUE INSPECTIONS UNTILVEGETATION IS FIRMLY ESTABLISHED.
q I.TIN cc�.
LL 4"U 30 11 4 DETAIL
ces crc lJJ 6' PM T_E2"(MA)) DETAIL NOTES: MAINTENANCE NOTE: S MULCHING
MATTING IN DITCHES - 1. ENDS OF WATTLES SHALL BE TURNED SLIGHTLY UP SLOPE. 1. INSPECT WATTLES WEEKLY AND AFTER EACH SIGNIFICANT SOURCE:NCDEQ
RAINFALL EVENT((1/21NCH OR GREATER)).REMOVE
MATTING ON SLOPES 2 RECOMMENDED STAKES ARE I}"WIDEx1}"THICKX30"LONG. ACCUMULATEDSEDIMENTANDANYD&S.THEWATTLE
10" EXISTING MUST BE REPLACED IF CLOGGED OR TORN.IF PONDING
(
MIN. GROUND tirnr r+>'- r 3. STAKES SHALL NOT EXTEND ABOVE THE STRAW WATTLE MORE THAN 2". BECOMES EXCESSIVE,THE WATTLE MAY NEED TO BE) `EXISTINGSOIL REPLACED WITH A LARGER DIAMETER ORA DIFFERENT
BACKFILL •tC�Ks(�-f•f 4. RECOMMENDED STAKE SPACING(d)EQUAL TO:F ON 1H:1V,WON 2H:1V, MEASURE.THE WATTLE NEEDS TO BE REINSTALLED IF
18" is,ON 3H:IV,AND20'ON<4HAV SLOPES. UNDERMINED OR DISLODGED.THE WATTLE SHALL BE
INSPECTED UNTIL LAND DISTURBANCE IS COMPLETE AND THE
IB•.1 -� 5
2"3"DEPRESSION . PROVIDE 6"MINIMUM OVERLAP,DRAB REQUIRED BY THE AUTHORITY AREA ABOVE THE MEASURE HAS BEEN PERMANENTLY
STAPLES ON / HAVINGJURISDICTION. STABILIZED.
V CENTERS 3'
D � \'`v•''jF IN TRENCH staple S(Qple Check Pattern 6 DETAIL
STRAW WATTLE T} 3 MIN SOURCE-NCDEQ
N XHEF:e .TX051
MATTING SHALL BE STAPLES ON X
PLACED IN TRENCH 1'CENTERS Staple CI."
ANO BACKFILLED IN TRENCH
DIAGRAM OA DIAGRAM © DIAGRAM OC am eten mrdrst rhfabricwHhefrefene NOTES:
6'Inox.extre ateritt,,fabric wRlnut it.fr+xe 1. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION
Wore
INSTALLATION NOTES: SECTION 0157 13.Crass-Section 2 VEGETATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION SECTION329219.
1. THIS DETAIL APPLIES TO STRAW,EXCELSIOR,AND PERMANENT SOIL REINFORCEMENT MAT(PSRM)INSTALLATION, steer View FERTILIZER RATES SHALL BE DETERMINED BVA SOIL TEST.
"_ ,=�_ K+"i'Tr .:_ an..k..°post �1.14
,.v;:� �T-•I''1` Fllrer 3. SEEDING RATE I&BASED UPON TABLE 6.11.D OF THE NCDEQ EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
2.STAPLES SHALL BE NO.11 GAUGE STEEL WIRE FORMED INTO A"U"SHAPE WITH A MINIMUM THROAT WIDTH OF ONE INCH AND {. 3. Dlasl c vh steel fabric Bwkfll trrrch PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL.
NOT LESS THAN SIX INCHES IN LENGTH. ;I il':s J 1 f j k t re rues post aM rsmpaer N terel
'k-`-,-- I I17r, , - / thvroughp 9rW"d 4: OPTIMAL PLANTING DATES ARE BASED UPON THE COASTAL PLAIN REGION FROM TABLES 6.11AAND
T j ' (" / 6.11.0 OF THE NCDENR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL
3.SECURE COIR FIBER ROLLED EROSION CONTROL PRODUCTS(RECP)WITH WOODEN STAKES HAVING THE FOLLOWING W_ 'd0 24• IC
! - If 1 S. TEMPORARY SEEDING ONLY TO BE APPLIED IF CONDITIONS PREVENT PERMANENT SEEDING.
MINIMUM DIMENSIONS: 11'WIDEX1g THICKX24'LONG. `t�ti•--r "' '•".l• GERMAN MILLET TO BE REMOVED PRIOR TO PERMANENT SEEDING.
9-d In
4.ALL ENDS OF THE RECP OTHER THAN OVERLAP SECTIONS SHALL BE KEYED A MINIMUM OF 1 FOOT INTO SOIL AND SECURED e.
WITH SPECIFIED WOOD STAKES ON 3-FOOT SPACING. yt - -• -ya= �( 24. I r•••; •
Ili:•,•
B'Eoim�4 i •••.,.• REv DATE DescwvnoN DRN APP
� MAINTENANCE NOTES: 24• ��
fabric
1.INSPECT ROLLED EROSION CONTROL PRODUCTS(RECP)AT LEAST WEEKLY AND AFTER EACH SIGNIFICANT(1/21NCH OR Geosyntee® DUKE
ENERGY
GREATER)RAIN FALL EVENT REPAIR IMMEDIATELY. COnSUIt3IIt5 OF NC,PC
a MAINTENANCE NOTES: uoc sourH MINT sTREEr,sulrE aoo
8 2.GOOD CONTACT WITH THE GROUND MUST BE MAINTAINED,AND EROSION MUST NOT OCCUR BENEATH THE RECP. CHARLOTrE,NC 28203 USA
g 1.INSPECT SEDIMENT FENCES AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK AND AFTER EACH RAINFALL MAKE ANY REQUIRED REPAIRS IMMEDIATELY. PHONE:7oa.22 0840 PROGRESS
3:ANY AREAS OF THE RECP THAT ARE DAMAGED OR NOT INCLOSE CONTACT WITH THE GROUND SHALL BE REPAIRED AND
C LICENSE NO.:C4SM
SECURED.
2.SHOULD THE FABRIC OF A SEDIMENT FENCE COLLAPSE,TEAR,DECOMPOSE OR BECOME INEFFECTIVE,REPLACE IT PROMPTLY. THE-
N
g 3.REMOVE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATESTORAGEVOLUMEFORTHENEXTRAINANDTOREDUCEPRESSUREON EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS I
4.IF EROSION OCCURS DUE TO POORLY CONTROLLED DRAINAGE,THE PROBLEM SHALL BE FIXED AND THE ERODED AREA PROTECTED. THE FENCE.TAKE CARE TO AVOID UNDERMINING THE FENCE DURING CLEANOUT. PROJECT' PERMIT DRAWINGS
3
4.REMOVE ALL FENCING MATERIALS AND UNSTABLE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AND BRING THE AREA TO GRADE AND STABILIZE IT AFTER THE AREA 1 EAST CELL GRADING PLAN-EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN
5.MONITOR AND REPAIR THE RECP AS NECESSARY UNTIL GROUND COVER IS ESTABLISHED. CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGEAREA HAS BEEN PROPERLY STABILIZED. -
smE: ASHEVILLE REGIONAL AIRPORT
DETAIL 7 DETAIL ASHEVILLE,NORTH CAROLINA F
3 ROLLED EROSION CONTROL PRODUCTS
3 SEDIMENT FENCE DESIGN BY: KRF DATE: AUGUST2018
S
H'IDRr
OS OURCE:NCDEq SOURCE NCDEQ �45.•SA• �
p'� DRAM BY: JWO PROJECT NO.: 'GC6463
m XRER GC6463.07XO52 (� nu eY. 1 ^_O`ofessro y'
39 L,Itw.LS 1G. °P'Ell 1: _ CHECKED BY. JDM FILE: GC6463.07D040
_ 01x112
£w � _ `
REVIEWED BY: VMD DRAWING NO.:
PERMIT DRAWINGS-NOT F-- CONSTRUCTION 17 August 201E APPROVED BY: JDM GF 5
i 2
3 4 5 i 7 8

1 2 I /�_3 l 4 I 5 I 6 '
I 7 I 8
TEMPORARY DIVERSION BERM MINIMUM 1.25'COVER Pipe Outlet to Flat Area- --
No Well-defined Channel
_ 3d 1
10'Spacing Max I-1 I I-III- MINIMUM3 25 p A
do W
OUTLET INVERT �---- _
ELEVATION
INLET INVERT
A OUTLET ELEVATION Plan
10 24-IN.0 i i t 1-1 i I-1I-
5 STRUCTURE CORRUGATED '�I -III-I r Le A
HDPE PIPE .III_ �I
APRON LENGTH III_ Hooded Arafat
u A°-
0%SLOPE II II 'T YII�
EXISTING PERIMETER
III-I Section AA yFillar. SWALE CENTERUNE�
_ blanket Notes
APRON I II-III-1 I 1-III-III' HOLD DOWN APPARATUS(TYP) 1.La Is the length of the riprap
I-'''-III-III- SILT FENCE POSTS OR apron.
THICKNESS _ __-_ Pipe Outlet to Channel
WIDTH VARIES
III-III APPROVED EQUIVALENT Channel 2.do1.5 dines the t maximum
T _ slOne dameler but not less VARIES VARIES
GEOTEXTILE / -I I than 6'. T„ e °° o ,
SEPARATOR: 3.Inawell,defined channel ex- 1 o 8o go °°o>Q °g^g °gag 1 Se go aOS g08°go"O
lentltheapron upthechannei °go,°.go 8o ago8°oeo (MIN)g p $go
4PIan ,
banks to an elevation of 6• s '1I c•n e °'gt\/ °
$ DETAIL abovethemaximumtailwaler 4 4
3 SLOPE DRAIN depthorto the top ofthe bank,whichever is less. ° (2)15 DIAMETER OR
SCALE:N.T.S 4.A filler blanket or filler fabric 6' (2)154N.DIAMETER
-1:Gcsas3.drxoss should be Installed between CULVERT(S)(NOTE 7)
me riprap and soil foundation.
6 VEGETATION(TYP)
(NOTE 5) TOPWIDTH 12-IN.THICK(MIN) B
T
(VARIES) La
20' NCDOT P.ABC STONE
1 ROLLED EROSION 6 ° ° 8 ° 8.d °
CONTROL PRODUCTS, I II 3 ,ga °agog go °og g go °•°go°Pogo° °°goe° ° po° -I
( tI- a$np 8 adPgaoB Pdg 1' o o�oo°S° g 1
DEPTH VARIES (TYP
rj�N °' Section AA 'I- ryl v� g8o "e g$$ rag e� g n ,,IMIN)i°og°°ego °o°e g8o°pO°Ou bo 1&IN.DIAMETER OR
o09X. °go °ago° 88g °eogd gp.° (2)15-IN.DIAMETER
(1.5 MIN) 1 1 Eller voa� oenoe°go8$° °o ga8°° o°°°go e° o°g .So°dgg°e gde °°gdea°8°o°e°go° CULVERTS)
1 4 4 blanket o ° FLOW
OUTLET LOCATION dso La 3dp W i \l
(FT)(MIN) (FT) (FT) (FT) CHANNEL LINING COMPACTED MAINTAIN TEMPORARY
I STORM WATER CHANNEL
I~5'�•'I NORTH .5 14 6.0 15.5 MAINTAIN TEMPORARY (NOTE 6) / SUBGRADE FLOWLINE ELEVATIONS
MAINTENANCE NOTES: STORM WATER CHANNEL AND GRADES
EAST •5 14 6.0 15.5 FLOWLINE ELEVATIONS
1. INSPECT STORM WATER CHANNELS AT LEAST WEEKLY AND AFTER EACH SIGNIFICANT(112 MAINTENANCE NOTE AND GRADES
INCH OR GREATER)RAINFALL EVENT.
2. REPAIR EROSION CONTROL FEATURES(I.E.,CHECK DAMS,RECP,ETC),AS NEEDED TO 1.Inspect riprapoudetswctures wookly and ultersigui6eant(1/2 inch orgreater)
rainfall m ants to sec ifany erasion around orbelow tho riprap fm takenplace,
ACHIEVE INTENDED USE, or if stona lace been dislodged Lnmcdiately make all needed rcpuim tO
C 3. RESEED CHANNEL IF DISTRESSED OR DAMAGED VEGETATION IS OBSERVED. prevent further Bandage.
9 DETAIL 10 DETAIL
13 DETAIL C
3 DRAINAGE CHANNEL 3 OUTLET STABILIZATION STRUCTURE 3 CU�EVERT
SCALE:N.T.S SOURCE NCDED x F:oc6ear.o7xn7
x F:Gce.ca.arxns SCALE:N.T.S
xREF:ccn.sa.o7xosc
BARBED WIRE
1'
TOP OF EROSION and SENUENTATON CONTROL PLAN Rusuerl-RENEW CNECIILIeT
WIRE MESH NCDEO;Division ofSnrrgy,Mined msd Land Resomde;Suppl®era to Plan Checklist[m Dasignm
NPOESOmnrvnim mmn«ele.a nNCOmmm Duk.Energy,A<hevilk RdSk dlAiryon,Arrnl EmtCe6Gmdcg Plan-Erddwdd Sediment Camrol Rl.,
r O.dpn.11mmma prof wwev Nslmly mypmaaava'Agnm npQrtmeaa epprypa Seevm Marame Deena. GC6463
�!6 Gvtlpn dttiadnawpb maem!mmw adnhamate fmwavq watlrml°ape Semen p.av am.Pomd.
Locanox wraanwnou _ name and aeswntmdn a regm,N wla cwse m n ve m
6.0APPRO nepd meNa(my Meq Xmrc.aa awwvee ro 1.Listed in Note I ofConslrudian Sequencing ofDmwing 3.
D ( _g Pmlea lDcellmnlammastwnymw agar.nma+.I.nmm.+t n
Nam eNo.md.gle 2.Shown on Drawing 1. O
WOODEN POST NenuryRN<r evsm. sTORSN/ATEaeuLvuTrorx_
(TYP) Pmam.copy ce me Imd<d m.pWgpe us is..a-,. 3.Shown on Dmwinga I through 3.
v dNRC99QIameps lld to lne RNer eesln wln Ripmen eumr _� Rwcmmuamtmoltenalwmrla Rem Jn nvnmeme(vl NOTES:
nRAmnml+. pox asm.mt wnN,ae rare m mtdae m..mN;w mN fro 4.Listed in Now 7 on Drawing 2.
S cmleaAt mTEPEATURES(APPROX) Iplen nemmHl ..aaa°m,Maa'dm�m�wmicwslvm ran ;m -.1 5.Shown°n Drawings l and 2 e m 1. AS-BUILT NOT AVAILABLE AT TIME OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT.MODIFICATIONS AND/OR REPAIR TO THE SECURITY
mean FENCE SHALL ADHERE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ASHEVILLE REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY.
Pm..'n<+nawnen 1.NdaeQpmmpmmeRief Ded mlp�se.bnr fa Pom QwtRga a Nndl(uMuf p Nt 6.Shown on Drawing 2.
-Z Eamnpembw.IteDepnpph until ran Para yuseamefndnnatcgPtleNsfame met g 2 COMPACT SOIL TO PREVAILING GRADE TO FACILITATE NORTHWARD DRAINAGE.
PnrmeaeWm. _� penm ales ra anmaand nmm gwen Mtlw.HW,lW and
-e LmeEa a aaum.d ran IPald.a<rt.Po taa,adnene asaX owe lmco7 7.Ebsting contours are shown on Drawings 2 and 3.
�'alma ee
CUT CONCRETE msn tomwde esagostomma.Aus ram wa awm�w.elomy c.ma,dan ra qen manna.w ram ad°mea.na-at m.y-damd. -(°e�n°manp,l:m...» 8.Proposed contours are shown on Drawing 3. 3. GRADE INSIDE(SOUTH SIDE)AREA TO FENCE CUTOUT.ADJUST NORTH SIDE TO DRAIN TO DIVERSION FEATURE.
FOOTER WIRE MESH drama vnd then wlavI-.and n.v.pms, � ovsk.dwaPms axuw eN m<mN dNebt+um fro
Planed n den i,-harm,a atv.dma,nm,m+v eamnv•Np.aeewnnaa[awes sanPe.ylhmvs}wam
(TYP) umPP.i.<gss r°eea eprsmn.:e pmnnme 9.Shawn on Drawing 3.
Nt, wlenaa bundacnumbea �a oeam ttlomdso,mum mw.krrna:d�den bow 4. ANCHOR GEOTEXTILE INIFOOT WIDE BY 6INCH DEEP TRENCH.
F"q. R reelurtx ram tutamA:<eDa,sPMpr,wmeta aMR and Rmn newer dwtu f aura Nmatnnmel sPoq n 10.Shown On Drawings 2 and 3.
ma tn<o-pmtia,aw.mr,hxq.pram,dims.er<lmawe m vn ammama}AwulaYmerpnmt0dmo. S. VEGETATION MAYBE REPLACED BY GEOMEMBRANE OR CLOSURE TURF®AS SELECTED BY DUKE ENERGY AND
epr
mwam tarot m One woe zmx ma.mDwG Rigmn eve, oeddm o:and dmmdm d.mm<nr m:am mad-I I1.Shown on Drawings 2 and 3.
mmmvopmq w. na ew a<rneMp a<nmraf.f wa ea memm a THE OWNER.GEOMEMBRANE OR CLOSURE TURF®SHALL BE ANCHORED PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.
_AA E.semnez ena aninapew.n.Po,sasmfy sm�ca w ahee rum 1d me bmml ae:rat w,rnl vmq ohms,bMaarq 12.Shown on Drawing 3. 6. IF TEMPORARY STORM WATER CHANNEL IS LINED WITH A GEOMEMBRANE OR CLOSURETURF®,CONTRACTOR
dletlm ems.Nwm apes avMgcadN e�aimts eNb ddM -dedm,wmnmepgabwatdnpe td-b.sms.
eemeN.wnM1 vapnhp m.DeM..^.n
l3.Shown Gn 3.
CONCRETE xa .Imamqu,eu.-leAaw ran,ne s/EGErarvE srAsnNanoN SHALL PLACE AI6-OZ/SV NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE CUSHION BETWEEN THE RCP CULVERT AND AGGREGATE
;•I,; mm.pueesdgmmabam l.gsma MATERIAL
.• ^`: �•. :A •.I.' • - , FOOTER xt, im.mma PonmmNuaa m.l.no-dsarol^p.meyaay rtos.a<e tobeemoued,„m stpaaum I4.Shown on Drawing 3.
nand borax m wn+h.cUAry,rat nlu<e heron a vent NM°d°rm]pcysNim
//\/�\/ /�\/�\/�\�\�\/ • \/�\/�\/�\ \/�\/�\/�\/�\/ u.bmn+awcde atv°wylas qp�m Ymm'au.I A�aa Fe yp�a.mDa�apmu°ntno 15.Shown on Drawings3tivough 5. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL CULVERT DIAMETER IN CHANNEL PER DRAWING 3.1&IN.DIAMETER RCP SHALL BE
/\\//\\// \//\\/\\\/��\�\ //\//\//\// ///\//\\//\\//\ tsn,a h e l°noon nvmeha by m.D.alm a w.ae a N,W type ma No(we m,lm mamma meneaa m m 16.Shown on Drawings 3 through 5. CENTERED IN CHANNEL
E \ \ \ /�\\\\\\\ \\ n \\� ehn.v<mmL lr m.lmamd,alnp e<eary ena my Nam - v 0
/ /// \////� \ /�i /�\. /• brow m Msh vawy n°Pd mnmme°q me wq perm. 17.Provided in Not,13 of Drawing 3. E
/ ryRfhm be cmddered femmly lmbadunded WMtka.nd NOTE: Wnabald mend moalmf fa vevnecanrinmwdmu wM
\ De In=alma mtayt dr d dn. Pauupm NPDEs O a i a I&Shown on Dmwin SOIL COVER cmacaaa.aame.iaabmwe.mmwam m.M1ndru rl pmn.n<ad1-ce rmuQa:we ma^t 83'
g (MIN) \ u'. Lac Ira fnamNu..asotlaed elN.M mmt roe avanupa 'pmNm80c en c-NM1W,mere wf�d-d RD/ DATE� \ Brae Pogasmv amnedd.+c...Ica. me.n:sm ao ranynlmdcmwi¢Emmat,n.Pmea. 19.Listed is Notes 12 and lS oflhawing3 and drainage areas ard identified within Wa DESCRIPTION pryd ppp
\ eumhha wen ote.npdn pmcessitp.dmaltpnm one bansleM1
a \ mwe melmys.a tmm�iq t mma.ea.s,w nmel.N wa Fro 'w s RSN Monnwater calculations provided in the permit application package.
WIRE MESH a ^v Mcy Cd,,n 404 a-A cad!WW,b.ngay.a Geosynte& DUKE
\ (TYP) Rtgynd a my emm as pmnn end wore m.rry at wtPmea,apga a naemw FP.O Fmm 20.Shown on Dra\vings 3 and 5.
METALLIC maacmm(e.a.wan mrammm omtdp wevtem _� Amunry mp%q:lm ke WY+NV Id NCaENR jW1,00 per ecm
FASTENER/WIRE \ GEOTEXTILE SEPARATOR r weawpn nee ran wmno«mnv emanu 21.Shown on Drawing 2. <95
a \ (NON WOVEN)(NOTE 3) a.olNraon�ROLNF.smsrme.s cenagNmammeanem.,utnaoncN.pummad 8 C0f1SI11tMt9OFNC,PC ENERGY®
�� Name datyd<rMA%a.1`.dd_.N
a ANTI-BURROW AGGREGATE m a tpalm epPPT.we wmeas b^m m..smo.N upyam.P,w wswd oeea rmm.nee.R�eq met.N,n me 22 Listed in Note l4 on Drawing 3. 1300 SOUTHIMW STREET,SUITE3°0
e WIRE MESH n em.mtdm.eondmalmdn,la7 ego(Nam.+neNapinmmsme,.m,ce,aaw®,me CHPPLOTTE,NC2Br03USA PROGRESS
i Ltmllm Qlmnpv.rvmmsvns Dan amna,lad remm w nhrmn 23.Included in permit application package. PHONE'70IM7.asdo
] }<rotlm dpvmmaR me.swn n P,Wav halve n Imyluae Gn mtlmd mmmq d me PMM N OCENSE NO.:C.3600
I. emmacum dmwhmmdadm.fa ero.nq. O24.Listed in Nolo lS on Drawin 3.
x Peery vnd Rrmanenl mevwrm.6now mmvrta Io sam m g TITtE:
''•• a.n sM rondo ytmaea mddun Mete nee.mry.Ensure NOTE: F.my Eu-Pumswp Oe6m.Have d my Idcd R<ymN
VARIES .'a_a mdm auepv neaenmN m.m.ia.nwd way,m pn.ua d lea raawesay. 25.Listed in Notes 9 and 10 on Drawing 3 and Details 2,3,and 4 on Drawing 4.
u I °•' CONCRETE ten ram. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS II
' 1 FOOTER sa u.ldenenee nqulrmnmarmmmsnm n2 axoeousrR vMN ego a t•P 26.Included in permit application package.
_J) Cmaa Poem aspmsmbbnrdntmenq
5 6" I I seeDRaINAOEFE•ruaE9 SAT N.ndNe mfal>rg pm nnum n^purpme d me mimuam 27.Listed in Note 16 on Drawing 3. PR jJ : PERMIT DRAWINGS
COMPACTED SOIL em.•.avn seamn rehha h emslm ma.edmm emoa 28.Shown on Drawing 3. AREA 1 EAST CELL GRADING PLAN-EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN
9 3'� (NOTE - EYldhpmdyenned aaEl.q pmem+wwee aDapa ne..ran A (nwanp mXm.pm dmdm menvm+Dnmm me lmdmma
( ) Oran INay Pam tna.aa.r.Nmpa.ry ma Pom.nea mi.OGa b q.aNryar rat prima uws.de Ram y ASHEVILLE REGIONAL AIRPORT
_d W d lgneoer m,d aoDol qm.n 1-aey..Bradt Orono+m 29.Shown on Drawing 3. smE:
Named o<d to dale-d-de d Iw baste d'.N.aed ma sosdnmm end n<teas.y p,rco.ssa nee wwy1°5°a a
W F: <! \//\\//\ \ pn.ameu PdDdawmoswm(ev.ewlmum meP) unwP byvpa+.aewmm>aap>. t1'°00r0ry 30.Included in pemrit application package.
3^ \\/ / _ elia"pPemntnla.netgtamDrcw n+.nd:..,t,+ �v+ ae ep.aaffima Nn.a my I° edtlm mma ASHEVILLE,NORTH CAROLINA F
SOILCOVER s5a°m lania�m.um•baaeal.�en�lmn° srterotr DESIGN BY: KRF DATE: AUGUST 2078
1.
rW (MIt•0 �"(N CARD i/• DRAWN BY: JWO PROJECr No: GC:6463
?w 11 DETAIL CONCRETEFOOTER 12 DETAIL `=:POFEea/o��;_
�9 •)p°ciS _ - CHECKED BY: JDM FILE: GC6463.07D050
g 3 SECURITY FENCE MODIFICATIONCHECKLIST'
_ SEAL f-: =
E EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN CHECKLIST °""' •' -
€� (NOTE 1) B1H"1'"a ' IR •%(.� REVIEWED BY: VMD DRAWING NO:
o r SCALE:1"=Z 17 August 2018
PERMIT DRAWINGS-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION rate\\ aPPROyEDaY: JDM 5 of 5
1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7
8

Attachment 2
E&SC Technical Specifications

Section 0157 13: Erosion and Sediment Control
Asheville Regional Airport—Area 1 Storm Water Grading Plan,Rev 0
SECTION 01 5713
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
PART 1 GENERAL
1.01 SUMMARY
A. This Section establishes the requirements for temporary erosion and sediment
("E&S") controls to minimize the migration of sediment off the Site. The
Contractor shall provide all materials, equipment, and labor necessary to
accomplish installation, inspection, maintenance, and removal of the temporary
E&S controls.
B. The activities relating to E&S controls shall include, but not be limited to, the
following:
1. Installation of sedimentation and erosion control barriers.
2. Installation of rolled erosion control products.
3. Inspection of erosion control measures once every seven calendar days
and within 24 hours after each rainfall of 0.5-inch accumulation or greater
or the following business day if the 0.5-inch rainfall accumulation occurs
outside of normal business hours.
4. Repairing immediately failed sedimentation and erosion control barriers.
5. Replacing immediately damaged and/or deficient rolled erosion control
products.
6. Removing and disposing of sediment deposits in a manner that does not
result in additional erosion or pollution.
7. Removal of sediment fences, straw wattles, and other erosion control
measures, after completion of construction and after permanent
stabilization is complete.
1.02 RELATED SECTIONS
A. Drawings
GC6458\01 57 13 Erosion&Sediment Control 0157 13-1 August 2018
ISSUED FOR PERMIT

Section 01 57 13: Erosion and Sediment Control
Asheville Regional Airport—Area I Storm Water Grading Plan,Rev 0
1.03 REFERENCES
A. North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual,
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources, North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources
B. North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual, Division of
Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources, North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
C. North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Inspector's Guide, Division of
Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources, North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
D. Stormwater Best Management Practices Plan, Division of Energy, Mineral, and
Land Resources, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources
E. North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC), Title 15A, Chapters 02, 04, and
08.
F. General Permit (NCG 010000) to Discharge Stormwater under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System for Construction Activities
G. Local Regulations and Ordinances
1.04 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS
A. Temporary erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed as the first
step in construction, shall be routinely inspected, continuously maintained, and
shall not be removed until permanent vegetation is completely established and
stabilized, as approved by the Engineer.
B. The Contractor shall be required to obtain all required permits, including .
coverage under the General Permit NCG 010000,upon contract award.
1.05 SAFETY
A. The Contractor shall be familiar with, and shall at all times conform to, the
regulations promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
("OSHA") and set forth in "General Industry Occupational Safety and Health
Standards", 29 C.F.R. Part 1910, and "Safety and Health Regulations for
Construction," 29 C.F.R. Part 1926, and other applicable state and local
standards and.regulations.
B. The Contractor shall comply with all provisions of the Owner's safety policies.
GC6458\01 57 13 Erosion&Sediment Control 01 57 13-2 August 2018
ISSUED FOR PERMIT

Section 01 57 13: Erosion and Sediment Control
Asheville Regional Airport—Area I Storm Water Grading Plan,Rev 0
C. The Contractor shall perform work in a safe manner in accordance with the
accepted Contractor's Health and Safety Plan("CHASP").
PART 2 PRODUCTS
2.01 MATERIALS
A. Materials under this Section 01 57 13 shall include but not be limited to the
following items. The Contractor shall comply with the Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
1. Stakes and Fasteners: shall be 5-ft minimum length steel posts weighing
not less than 1.33 pounds per linear foot for sediment fences.
2. Sediment Barriers: shall be stone, sediment fences, or other approved
materials that will prevent migration of silts and sediment to receiving
waters. Sediment fence shall meet the requirements of the most recent
version of the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and
Design Manual.
3. Rolled Erosion Control Products: shall meet the requirements of the most
recent version of the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control
Planning and Design Manual.
4. Construction entrance/exit: shall be stone meeting the requirements of the
most recent version of the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control
Planning and Design Manual.
PART 3 EXECUTION
3.01 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
A. It is the Contractor's responsibility to implement and maintain erosion and
sediment control measures which effectively prevent erosion and sediment
discharges.
B. Earthmoving activities shall be conducted in such a manner as to prevent
erosion and sediment discharges.
C. Erosion and sediment control measures shall be inspected by the Contractor
once every seven calendar days and within 24 hours after each rainfall greater
than 0.5 inches.
GC6458\01 57 13 Erosion&Sediment Control 0157 13-3 August 2018
ISSUED FOR PERMIT

I
Section 0157 13: Erosion and Sediment Control
Asheville Regional Airport—Area 1 Storm Water Grading Plan,Rev 0
1. Repair and/or maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures
shall be made as soon as needed.
2. The Contractor shall be held responsible for the implementation and
maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures for this project.
D. Restabilization shall be implemented within the time frame described within the
approved SVWPPP.
E. Erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed prior to construction
activities.
F. Sediment removal from temporary control structures and from permanent
drainage facilities shall be the responsibility of the Contractor.
G. Sediment shall be disposed of in a manner which is consistent with overall
intent of the project and which does not result in additional erosion.
H. It is the Contractor's responsibility to provide resources necessary to prevent
erosion of soil from the Site, and to provide sediment fences, straw wattles,
temporary check dams, or other control measures as the need arises during
construction at no additional cost to the Owner.
I. The Contractor shall remove erosion and sediment control barriers after
construction has been completed and permanent stabilization has been
established, as approved by the Engineer.
3.02 SPECIAL CONDITIONS
A. Prohibited Construction Practices - Prohibited construction practices include,
but shall not be limited to,the following:
1. Dumping of spoil material into stream corridors,wetlands, surface waters
or at unspecified locations.
2. Operation of equipment in stream corridors, wetlands other than indicated
in the Drawings, or surface waters.
3. Pumping of silt-laden water from trenches or other excavations into
surface waters or stream corridors.
4. Disposal of trees, brush and other debris in stream corridors, surface
water, or at unspecified locations.
5. Open burning of construction project debris.
GC6458\01 57 13 Erosion&Sediment Control 01 5' 13-4 August 2018
ISSUED FOR PERMIT

Section 0157 13: Erosion and Sediment Control
Asheville Regional Airport—Area 1 Storm Water Grading Plan,Rev 0
3.03 ADJUSTMENT OF PRACTICES
A. If the planned measures do not result in effective control of erosion and
sediment runoff meeting the requirements of the General Permit to Discharge
Stormwater for Construction Activities, the Contractor shall immediately adjust
his activities and/or institute additional measures so as to eliminate erosion and
sediment runoff at no additional cost to the Owner.
B. If the Contractor fails or refuses to comply promptly, the Engineer may issue an
order stopping all or part of the work until satisfactory corrective action has
been taken. No time lost due to stop orders shall be made the subject of a claim
for extension of time or for excess costs or damages by the Contractor.
[END OF SECTION]
GC6458\01 57 13 Erosion&Sediment Control 01 57 13-5 August 2018
ISSUED FOR PERMIT

t
Section 32 92 19: Seeding
Asheville Regional Airport—Area 1 Storm Water Grading Plan,Rev.0
SECTION 32 9219
SEEDING
PART 1 GENERAL
1.01 SUMMARY
A. The Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, and equipment required to
complete seeding and establish vegetation in disturbed areas not stabilized with
boulder stabilization at the Site in accordance with this Section. The seeding
activities covered by this Section include but are not limited to:
B. The seeding activities relating to erosion and sediment control vegetation shall
include, but not be limited to,the following:
1. determining herbicides, fertilizer, ratios, times of_ application and
schedules;
2. seeding of sediment and erosion control vegetation;
3. applying fertilizer and soil amendments;
4. installing,maintaining,replacing, and removing mulch;
5. soil tests to determine the required soil additives for all stabilized areas;
and
6. mowing and other vegetation maintenance practices.
1.02 RELATED SECTIONS AND PLANS
A. Section 01 57 13 Erosion and Sediment.Control
B. Drawings.
1.03 REFERENCES
A. Latest version of North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ) Manual, Practice Standards and Specifications, Chapter 6.11
Permanent Seeding
B. Latest version of North Caroline Department of Transportation Standard
Specifications for Roads and Structures (NCDOT), Section 1060.
GC6463\32 92 19 Seeding 32 9119-1 August 2018
ISSUED FOR PERMIT

Section 32 92 19: Seeding
Asheville Regional Airport—Area 1 Storm Water Grading Plan,Rev.0
1.04 SUBMITTALS
A. At least 30 calendar days prior to implementing permanent vegetative
stabilization activities, the Contractor shall provide the Construction Manager
with the following:
1. soil test results per NCDEQ Chapter 6.11;
2. the seed mixture; quantity, and application rate proposed for use;
3. the mulch type and application rate proposed for use;
4. the fertilizer type and application rate proposed for use; and
5. the seed bed preparation process proposed for use.
1.05 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS
A. Project work shall conform to erosion and sediment control measures
requirements of the NCDEQ.
B. Before proceeding with seeding activities, the Contractor shall carefully check
and verify dimensions and quantities and shall immediately inform the
Construction Manager of any discrepancies between the Drawings and actual
conditions. No work shall be performed in an area where a discrepancy has
been identified until approval has been provided by the Construction Manager.
C. The Contractor shall be required to obtain all required permits, including the
Land Disturbance Permit, upon contract award.
1.06 SAFETY
A. The Contractor shall be familiar with, and shall at all times conform to, the
regulations promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
("OSHA") and set forth in "General Industry Occupational Safety and Health
Standards", 29 C.F.R. Part 1910, and "Safety and Health Regulations for
Construction, " 29 C.F.R. Part 1926, and other applicable state and local
standards and regulations.
B. The Contractor shall comply with all provisions of the Owner's safety policies.
C. The Contractor shall perform work in a safe manner in accordance with the
accepted Contractor's Health and Safety Plan ("CHASP").
GC6463\32.92 19 Seeding 3292 19-2 August 2018
ISSUED FOR PERMIT

9
Section 32 92 19: Seeding
Asheville Regional Airport—Area I Storm Water Grading Plan,Rev.0
PART 2 PRODUCTS
2.01 MATERIALS
A. Materials shall be checked and approved, using the submittal process by the
Construction Manager or his designee before delivery to the Site and/or
installation. Such approval shall not relieve the Contractor of his obligations
under the Construction Documents.
B. Seeding materials under this section shall include but not be limited to the
following items:
1. Fertilizer. Fertilizer shall be commercially-prepared and granular.
Fertilizer shall be uniform in composition, dry, and free-flowing.
a. Fertilizer shall conform to all applicable state and federal
regulations.
b. Fertilizer for permanent seeding shall be of the specified organic
composition as determined by NCDOT 1060.
2. Limestone. Limestone shall be ground dolomitic limestone with 98-100
percent passing a 20 mesh sieve and 50 percent passing a 100 mesh sieve.
3. Seed. Grass seed shall meet the requirements specified in the NCDEQ
Manual. The Contractor shall use the seed mix requirements for General
Slope (3:1 or less) for the appropriate region, as outlined by the NCDEQ
Manual.
4. Mulch. Oat or wheat straw shall be used. Straw shall be dry and free
from weeds, weed seeds, and foreign matter detrimental to plant life.
Mulch shall conform to NCDOT 1060-5.
PART 3 EXECUTION
3.01 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Preparation:
1. General. Rake the soil surface to remove all root clumps, stones, and
debris 1 inch or greater in size. True up all depressions and edges. Soil in
the area to be seeded shall be prepared in accordance NCDOT 1060.
2. Grading. Establish a smooth grade ready to receive seed. The finished
grade must conform to the grades and elevations as shown on the
Drawings.
GC6463\32 92 19 Seeding 32 92 19-3 August 2018
ISSUED FOR PERMIT

Section 32 92 19: Seeding
Asheville Regional Airport—Area 1 Storm Water Grading Plan,Rev.0
3. Topsoil. Topsoil shall be in place for areas to be permanently seeded.
B. Application:
1. General. Seeding shall conform to NCDOT 1060. Initial seeding shall
consist of uniformly applying seed, mulch, and water on prepared areas.
Over-seeding shall consist of applying seed, mulch, and water to areas
previously seeded.
2. Lime: Apply lime uniformly at the rate of 2 tons per acre or as
recommended in the soil test report using approved application methods
listed in NCDOT 1060-3. After application, the soil shall be loosened to a
depth of 3 inches by disking, harrowing, or other approved method.
Washed and disturbed areas shall be final dressed prior to applying
fertilizer. Lime application is not required for areas to be temporarily
seeded for periods of less than 4 months.
3. Fertilizer. Incorporate fertilizer into the top 3 inches of soil by discing or
power rake.
a. For areas to be permanently seeded, apply fertilizer uniformly at the
rate of 30 pounds per 1,000 square feet.
b. For areas to be temporarily seeded, apply fertilizer uniformly at the
rate of 15 pounds per 1,000 square feet.
4. Seeding Time. Seed shall be sown during favorable weather conditions.
Seed shall not be sown when the ground is frozen or when air
temperatures are below freezing. Do not sow under windy conditions.
5. Seeding. Sow seed uniformly, dividing the selected rate in half and
sowing in cross directions using a mechanical spreader. Do not allow seed
to drift into adjacent planting beds.
6. Rolling. After machine sowing, lightly cover seed by harrowing or raking.
Compact lawn area seedbeds by rolling with a 200 pound hand roller.
7. Mulching. Mulching shall comply with the pertinent provisions NCDOT
1060-5
a. Apply mulch within 48 hours of sowing seed. Apply mulch of
loose straw uniformly at the rate of 2 tons per acre. Between
October 16 and January 31,the application rate shall be increased to
3 tons per acre. Mulch shall be anchored to the seeded surface by
discing, netting, or by other methods approved by the Owner or
Construction Manager.
GC6463\32 92 19 Seeding 3292 19-4 August 2018
ISSUED FOR PERMIT

Section 32 92 19: Seeding
Asheville Regional Airport—Area 1 Storm Water Grading Plan,Rev.0
b. Areas to be temporarily seeded need be mulched only during the
fall or during the summer when weather conditions are excessively
hot or dry.
8. Watering. Immediately after completion of mulching, apply water
thoroughly to mulch and seedbed with a fine mist spray. Water heavily
once per week during dry weather until a thick cover of grass is
established.
9. Hydroseeding_ Hydroseeding may be used as an alternative application
method upon. approval of the Owner. The use of alternative soil
amendments and mulch will be considered provided the application rates
comply with the rates specified in this Section.
C. The Contractor shall provide silt fences as needed to prevent runoff from seeded
areas until vegetation has become established, in accordance with Section 01 57
13.
D. Upon completion of work, the Contractor shall remove from the Site cord,
wrappings, stakes, and extraneous materials. The Contractor shall remove tools,
equipment, and other materials, except those necessary for maintenance. Litter
developing by reason of the Contractor's maintenance activities shall be
removed as it accumulates.
E. The Contractor shall maintain areas until seed has germinated and produced a
thick stand of grass but for not less than one (1) year following issuance of the
notice of termination by NCDEQ of the erosion and sediment control plan for
the Site.
F. During the maintenance period, the Contractor shall perform all mowing,
watering, repair of erosion areas, replacement of cover soil and topsoil, cleaning
of drainage ditches and drainage system components clogged by eroded topsoil
and cover soil, and reseeding until a thick stand of grass has been produced as
accepted by the Construction Manager and Owner. Maintenance shall also
include visual inspection of the cover system components for damage (e.g.,
penetrations of the soil cover or exposure of the geosynthetic layer). Observed
damage shall be temporarily covered with a tarp or other impervious cover and
notated within maintenance records maintained by the Contractor. The
Contractor shall report the damage to the Construction Manager within one
business day of being observed to initiate protocols to evaluate and repair the
damage, and submit notification to NCDEQ.
G. Mow areas intended for "groomed appearance" on a schedule during the
growing season and as required throughout the year to provide the desired
appearance for the particular species used for erosion control.
GC6463\32 92 19 Seeding 32 92 19-5 August 2018
ISSUED FOR PERMIT

Section 32 92 19: Seeding
Asheville Regional Airport—Area 1 Storm Water Grading Plan,Rev.0
1. The range of turf species suggested for lawns in the three growing regions
of North Carolina vary as to optimum maintained height. The selected
species should be maintained at a height recommended by the seed
producer. Do not cut too short and do not allow the turf to attain a height
that will cause the crop to decline or die. Consult individual seed
producers and/or packaging for recommended mowing heights.
2. Mow with a mulching mower to limit the amount of clippings removed, or
mow and blow in such a manner that clippings are not evident and not to
adversely affect the growing capacity and/or health of the existing
vegetation turf. It is important clippings are allowed to remain spread
throughout the lawn area, to the extent possible, so that they might aid in
building a more productive soil profile and root zone.
3. Mowing other stabilized areas to promote continued growth. Stabilized
areas that are not to achieve a "groomed" appearance is to be mowed to
recommended mowing heights for the particular species and as frequently
as recommended by the individual seed producer to foster erosion control
and ease of maintenance. In areas where it is desirable for woody native
volunteer vegetation to become established, the Contractor will pay
attention to mowing stakes or another indicator to protect desired woody
natives from the mowing operation
4. The Contractor shall cut the grass at least once, but not more than twice
per season, after a thick stand of grass is produced. The Contractor shall
coordinate grass cutting with the Construction Manager or Owner so that
inspections can be conducted immediately following cutting.
H. A satisfactory stand of vegetative cover shall be defined as a cover of living
plants, after true leaves are formed, of the required seed species designated for
use in which gaps larger than 25 square inches do not occur.
I. The Contractor shall make site observations monthly to check for the presence
of invasive species that could lead to unprotected soil and sediment damage and,
if found, treat them immediately with the appropriate cultural practices and/or
by the use of seasonally-appropriate and site appropriate herbicides.
J. The Contractor shall commence post-construction maintenance within two
weeks of notification that maintenance is required. Maintenance will be
conducted to the satisfaction of the Construction Manager or Owner.
3.02 ADJUSTMENT OF PRACTICES
A. If the planned measures do not result in effective control of erosion and
sediment runoff meeting the requirements of the General Permit for Discharges
of Stormwater from Construction Activities, the Contractor shall immediately
GC6463\32 92 19 Seeding 32 92 19-6 August 2018
ISSUED FOR PERMIT

Section 32 92 19: Seeding
Asheville Regional Airport—Area 1 Storm Water Grading Plan,Rev.0
adjust his activities and/or institute additional measures to eliminate erosion and
sediment runoff at no additional cost to the Owner.
B. If the Contractor fails or refuses to comply promptly, the Construction Manager
may issue an order stopping all or part of the work until satisfactory corrective
action has been taken. No time lost due to stop orders shall be made the subject
of a claim for extension of time or for excess costs or damages by the
Contractor.
[END OF SECTION]
GC6463\32 92 19 Seeding 32 92 19-7 August 2018
ISSUED FOR PERMIT

Attachment 3
Technical Memorandum — Stormwater
Calculations

Geosynteccl 1300 S.Mint Street,Suite 300
Charlotte,NC 28203
.'7 PH 704.227.0840
consultants www.geosyntec.com
Technical Memorandum
Date: 1 August 2018
To: Scott Nordgren,P.E.; John Toepfer,P.E.
From: Katie Fox,P.E., Geosyntec
Reviewed by: James McNash,P.E., Geosyntec
Subject:' Area 1 East Cell Stormwater Improvements—Asheville Regional Airport
INTRODUCTION AND:PURPOSE
The Asheville Regional Airport (ARA) Area 1 (Site) is located outside of Asheville, North
Carolina(NC). The proposed temporary stormwater improvements consist of top deck channels,
culverts, slope drains, and erosion and sediment control (E&SC)features to redirect surface water
from the Area 1 east cell's northern slope and limit soil cap erosion while a permanent soil cap
retrofit is designed.Temporary top deck channels and culverts will convey stormwater runoff from
the top deck to two slope-drain locations. The slope-drains will convey runoff down the Area 1
side-slope and discharge into an existing perimeter channel or stormwater retention pond. The
purpose of this design memorandum is to present the design criteria and calculations for the
temporary stormwater features depicted within the Area I E&SC Plan application.
DESIGN AND CALCULATION PARAMETERS
The following parameters were selected for to design the temporary stormwater features within
HydroCAD v. 10 [HydroCAD, 2016] and HY8 [FHWA,2016] as follows:
• Drainage Area Delineation: Drainage areas are delineated and are shown in Figure 1.
Subcatchments were generally delineated to the conveyance features (i.e., channels, pipes;
slope drains)utilizing available topographic data in AutoCAD files and Site field knowledge.
• Rainfall Distribution and Depths: The Site is characterized by SCS Type III Rainfall
Distribution [SCS, 1986]. Rainfall depths were taken from NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 2,
Version 3 [NOAA, 2018] for Arden,NC. Rainfalls depths for the design storm events are: (i)
4.88 inches for the 10-yr,24-hr storm; (ii) 5.76 inches for the 25-yr,24-hr storm;and(iii)7.20
inches for the 100-yr, 24-hr storm.
• Time of Concentration (TOC): A minimum TOC was selected to be 6 minutes based on
recommendations from the TR-55 manual [SCS, 1986]. Computations for travel time of sheet
GC6463/Stormwater Calculation Memo
engineers I scientists I innovators

Asheville Regional Airport—Area 1
1 August 2018
Page 2
flows and shallow concentrated flows were performed using Manning's kinematic solution
equation[SCS, 1986]within the HydroCAD model.Flow path measurements were scaled from
available topographic survey and design contours.
• Curve Number (CN): Curve numbers were assigned to contributing drainage basin areas to
the temporary stormwater features. A curve number of 90 was assigned to drainage basin areas
to reflect in-place soil cap system.
• Channels: Channels conveying flow to slope drain locations were designed to follow general
engineering practices and guidance from the NCDEQ Erosion and Sediment Control Planning
and guidance from the NCDEQ Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual
(ESC Manual) [NCDEQ, 2013]. The ESC Manual requires conveyance of the 10-yr, 24-hr
storm event; however, Geosyntec also considered the 25-yr, 24-hr storm event for channel
sizing. Channels were designed as trapezoidal-shaped channels with 4H:1V side slopes,depths
of 1.5 ft,and 5.0-ft bottom widths. Generally,a minimum channel longitudinal slope of at least
0.5 percent was maintained. Flow velocities within the channels ranged from 2 to 3 feet per
second(fps)for the 25-yr,24-hour storm event. Channels are proposed to be lined with rolled
erosion control products or geomembrane to establish vegetation or prevent a barrier within
the temporary stormwater features.
• Temporary Culverts: Temporary culverts are proposed to allow access over the temporary
stormwater channels to permit maintenance activities and were designed to follow general
engineering practices and guidance from the ESC Manual. The ESC Manual requires
conveyance of the 10-yr, 24-hr storm event. Culvert sizes and type range from two (2) 15-in.
to one (1) 18-inchdiameter reinforced concrete pipe and generally maintain a slope of 0.5
percent. The culverts were designed to convey 10-yr, 24-hr storm event without overtopping.
• Slope Drains: Two slope drains convey runoff down the Area 1 side-slopes without erosion
were designed to follow the general engineering practices and guidance from the ESC Manual.
The ESC Manual requires conveyance of the 10-yr, 24-hr storm event. The proposed slope
drains are 24-inch diameter corrugated HDPE pipes.The pipes will be anchored at the top deck
with a temporary diversion berm and along the side-slope of Area lwith silt fence posts or an
approved equivalent.
• Outlet Protection: Outlet protection at the downstream end of the downchutes was sized
using the ESC Manual Riprap Outlet Protection design calculation spreadsheet[NCDEQ,
2016] using flows from the 10-yr, 24-hr storm event. The spreadsheet accounts for pipe
GC6463/Stormwater Calculation Memo

Asheville Regional Airport—Area 1
1 August 2018
Page 3
outlet diameter,tailwater conditions, and discharge rates and velocities to calculate the riprap
apron width and length.
CALCULATIONS AND RESULTS
The temporary stormwater conveyance features proposed for the Site can convey the 10-yr, 24-hr
storm event without overtopping. Summary tables for drainage areas,channels,culverts,and outlet
protections are included as Tables 1 through 5, respectively. Rainfall depths are included as
Attachment A and model inputs and results from HydroCAD and HY-8 are included as
Attachments B and C,respectively.
REFERENCES
Federal Highway Administration (FWHA) (2016). "HY-8 Culvert Hydraulic Analysis Program
Version 7.50". https://www.fliwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/software/hy8/
HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC. (2011). "HydroCAD Stormwater Modeling System,
Version 10-15". Chicora,New Hampshire.
NOAA (2018). "NOAA Atlas 14, Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the United States, Volume 2,
Version 3 for Arden,North Carolina.April 2018.
NCDEQ (2013). "Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual".
https:Hdeq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources/energy-mineral-land-
permit-guidance/erosion-sediment-control-planning design-manual
NCDEQ (2016). "Riprap Outlet Protection Design Calculation Spreadsheet".
https:Hdeq.ne.g_ov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources/energy-mineral-land-
permit-guidance/erosion-sediment-control-planningdesign-manual/e-c-downloads
SCS (1986). Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, Technical Release 55 (TR-55), 2nd Ed.,
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Washington, D.C.
GC6463/Stormwater Calculation Memo

Asheville Regional Airport—Area 1
1 August 2018
Page 4
TABLES
GC6463/Stormwater Calculation Memo
engineers I scientists I innovators

Asheville Regional Airport—Area 1
1 August 2018
Page 5
Table 1. Drainage Areas and Time of Concentration
Areas and CN Time of Concentration
Area
Subcatchment ID Area Description CN Length Slope Length Slope
(acres) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft) (ft/ft)
NORTH PROJECT AREA Top Deck 5.20 90 100 0.032 458 0.032
SOUTH PROJECT AREA Top Deck 2.18 90 100 0.0231 224 0.023
GC6463/Stormwater Calculation Memo
engineers I scientists I innovators

Asheville Regional Airport—Area 1
1 August 2018
Page 6
Table 2. Channel Characteristics
Channel Characteristics
Channel ID Section Minimum Minimum Start Invcrt End Invert Longitudinal Channel Lining Side Slope Side Slope
Length(ft) Manning's n Bottom
Shape Depth(Channel(it) Elevation(ft) Elevation(ft) slope(ft/ft) Material Width B(ft) Mla Mza
NORTH CHANNEL trap 1.50 2148.1 2146A 347 0.005 RECP 0.030 5.00 4.00 4.00
SOUTH CHANNEL trap 1.50 2142.83 2140.98 375 0.005 RECP 0.030 5.00 4.00 4.00
Hydraulic Calculations-25-yr,24-hr
Channel Identification Q(eE) Peak low Peak Flow Freeboard(ft)
Depth Y(ft) Velocity s
NORTH CHANNEL 33 1.16 3 0.34
SOUTH CHANNEL 13 0.74 2 0.76
GC6463/Stormwater Calculation Memo

Asheville Regional Airport—Area 1
1 August 2018
Page 7
Table 3. Culvert Characteristics
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PIPE PIPE PROFILE
Pipe Name Entrance Pipe Diameter Length Inlet Invert Outlet Invert Slope Overtopping
Material Type Manning's n Configuration Number ofPipes m. ft Elevation ft Elevation ft fit
g (� ) O O O Wit) Elevation(l)(ft)
NORTH CULVERT Concrete 0.013 Mitered to Sloe 2 15 25 2147.2 2147.1 0.005 2149.7
SOUTH CULVERT Concrete 0.013 Mitered to Slope 1 18 25 2141.9 2141.8 0.005 2144.4
NORTH SLOPE DRAIN HDPE 0.012 Mitered to Sloe 1 24 104 2146.4 2114.00 0.312 2149.7
SOUTH SLOPE DRAIN HDPE 0.012 Mitered to Slope 1 24 100 2141.0 2128.00 0.130 2144.2
HYDRAULIC CAPACITY-10-YR,24-HR STORM EVENT
Controlling
Pipe Name Peak Flow Rate Tailwater Headwater Calculated
(cfs) Elevation Elevation for Freeboard
(ft) Maximum Design (ft)
Flow Rate ft
NORTH CULVERT 13 2148.3 2149.2 0.6
SOUTH CULVERT 6 2142.5 2143.4 1.0 i
NORTH SLOPE DRAIN 26 2114.0 2149.5 0.1
SOUTH SLOPE DRAIN 11 2128.0 2142.7 1.6
Notes:
1. The overtopping elevation was typically considered to be the lowest surrounding contour of the berm or ramp
near the culvert inlet.
GC6463/Stormwater Calculation Memo

Asheville Regional Airport—Area 1
1 August 2018
Page 8
Table 4. Outlet Protection for North Slope Drain
User in ut Data
Calculated Value
Reference Data
Designed By: w;TIC rox Date: 712012018
Checked By: JAMES MCNASH Date: 712012018
Company: cEosvrucc
Project Name: ASHEVILLE.AIRPORT
Project No.: GC5473
Site Location(City?own) natelgh
Culvert Id. NORTH SLOPE DRAIN
Total Drainage Area(acres) 5.2
Step 1_Dcimaiac the milwntcr depth Gom d>.utmel charaereri,,i s 6e1oet•the
pips outlet for the design capacity of the pipe. If the tahlw to depth is less
dun half the outer pipe diarnrtn,it is classified urinirmmr railsi'auer coruluiass.
If it i.great-thus half die pipe diaruerer,it is classified r—intrtin eondiiimt.
Pipes that outlet onto wide flat areas wilt no defrred channel are assumed
to have a lniumn,h ililwater condition utteSS reliable.flood Singe elevations
,bow Othen%iS
Outlet pipe diameter,D.(In.) 24
TaNvater depth(in.) 0
MinimumlMaximum tatlwater? Min TW(Fig.8.06a)
Discharge(cfs) 23
Velocity(11.1s) 19.7
Step Z. Based on the taihiater conditions determined in step 1.enter Figure
S.aca or Figure 8.06b,and determine d5e riprap size and niinimumh apron length
(L,).The dss size is the median stone size m a nprap a;iron.
Step 3. Determine apron width at tire pipe oudd,the apron shape,and the
apron mildr at die outlet end fioni the same tiguuc used wu Step 2_
Minimum TW Maximum TW
.. ,Rgigo?,061 Flghre 8.06h
Riprap dy.,(IL) 0.5
Minimum apron length,La(IL) 14
Apron width at pipe outlet(ft.) 6 6
Apron shape TRAP
Apron width at outlet end(ft.) 16 2
Step 4.Aerrnhune ihe:ihatinhhm stout diatuetcr:
1.5 x d,o
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Max Stone Diameter,dmax(ft.) 0.75 0
Step 5.Dctemiinc the apron thiclatcss:
Apron thickness=15 x d_,
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Apron Thidmess(ft.) 1.125 0
Step 6. Fit the riprap apron re the site by makin.it 1 rl for the minimum
length.I tram Figure 8.06a or Figure&06b. Extend the apron faniter
donvsucvn and along channel hanks rahtil stability is assired. Keep the
apron as mmiglhe as possible and align it with the flaw of the rmcning sucawr.
Ntake any necessary aligrtai r t bends tear the pipe ourlei so that the entrance
into the reenaiuS sttMe k strai6t,
Sorr a Iocauons may require lining of the entire,•h—,.l czars secdon m assure
stalhurv..
It may be necessary•to increase ibe size of riprap witerr prorecri,rt of die
channel side slopes is nccessazy(Appaneic S.O . There vi:rfalls exist at
pipe owlets or flown are excessive.a plunge pool should be considered.see
Past 5.0.8.
GC6463/Stormwater Calculation Memo
engineers I scientists I innovators

Asheville Regional Airport—Area 1
1 August 2018
Page 9
Table 5. Outlet Protection for South Slope Drain
User Input Data
Calculated Value
Ref6iar ce'DatIf
Designed By: lanEFox Date: 7/20/2018
Checked By: iAMEsMCNASH Date: 712012 0 1 8
Company: !;F9SYMr2C'
Project Name; ASHEVILLEAIRPORT
Pro ect No.: GC6473
Site Location(Cityfrown) RatWgu
Culvert Id. SOUTH SLOPEEDRAIN.
Total Drainage Area(acres) •2.18
Step 1.Determine du milwater depth from channel chancterisucs below the
pipe outlet for the desiml cnpaciry of the pipe. if the milwatn depth is Ic
d,an halfmc uadrt pipe diuurto,it is cL ifiicd ca.:ditia:,
If it is g c-.uvr dean kdf the pipe diawrte,,it is classified tnaximuwt eou diiien.
Pipes that outlet auto wide Hat areas with no defined elonnel are wumed
to have a mim.—tnilwn eomditiou unless rcLablc Hxd swge dtvauons
show othernise.
Outlet pipe diameter,Do(in.) 24
Tailwater depth(K) 0
Min'unum/Ma:dmum tailwater? Min TVV(Fig.13:06a)
Discharge(cfs) t.1
Velocity(ft./s) 1U
Stop 2.Based on the tada'ater coudwans dewnt uued m step 1,emu Figure
8.063 or Figure ska.and delennine duo tiprp size and u nnimum apron lengda
(L,.The d,t size is die uudi m stone srze w swell-graded tipnp apron.
Step 3-lletrnniue apron hidilt at the pipe auileL thn apm.shape,and the
apron width at the outlet end tram the same HEutr used in Step 2.
Minimum TW Maximum TW
.. .-Flnirce 8.(IEin. -.. ,Fim»e.R.eOK;
Riprap duo,(ft.) 0.5,
Minimum apron length,La(ft.) 14
Apron width at pipe outlet(ft) Ci a
Apron shape TRAP
Apron width at outlet end(ft.) 16 2
Step 4.Detaudue the mnintu m stone diameter.
dam„=1„x d,o
Minimum TW Maximtxn TW
Max Stone Diameter,dmax(it.) 0.75 0
Step Determine the apron thickness:
Apron tivrlmess�1,5 x d,„
Minimum TW Maximtxn TW
Apron Thickness(11.) '1.125 0
Step 6. Fit the ripnp apron to the site by nulking it level for the minimum
length,L,,from Figure S.06.i or Figure S,06b.. Extend the apron farther
denim mean and along chwncl banks until wbility is assured. Beep the
apron as m iobt as possible and Aip%it pith the How of the receiving scream.
Make mty nec'etsvy aliptrumr beads near the pipe owlet so that the Mt MCC
into the receiving suevu is suvglu.
Some locations may require Iming of the entire channel cross section to assure
wbility.
It may be nova.vy to increase the sic of nprap.'here protection of the
elrmwel sidle clam is iec"ury(Appu:diy,505). where oi'erfAlc exist at
pipe ontltts or Hoty-ii ire exeessivt,a plunge pool should bt eom'dned,see
page 8.06.3,
GC6463/Stormwater Calculation Memo

Asheville Regional Airport—Area 1
1 August 2018
Page 10
FIGURES
GC6463/Stormwater Calculation Memo
engineers I scientists I innovators

Asheville Regional Airport—Area 1
1 August 2018
Page 11
�%n
N,
i
.rAAE.i F'!.Y
. itk
�3 9
,
t. s
._ —..�.; Lp„V { � ,�h ..�.`(•u3ELNA41Fi 5 � � —I�-.x {�xs-[}— ��E 1 j4 S.� t. ��`,'��l r•��ew:v�. S �it� — J.~w, 9 �—` J �1s�a.aaMc i�et uenr 11 f
F l A/
•.- - FEh+CE b4tiFtt}TItk1 ,r �.. 1 �I 1 '
Approximate Area
1 High Point
(field observations)
"fF AREA,10=Fi S tl hfI��
}
1L E .............................. ✓ -> �usert of aeE ruit+o..t _
Figure 1. Drainage areas for the proposed grading plan
GC6463/Stormwater Calculation Memo

7/20/2018 Precipitation Frequency Data Servei
NOAA Atlas 14,Volume 2,Version 3
LF! DOC Location name:Arden,North Carolina,USA* 6d NOAA
LOGO I Link Latitude:35.4514%Longitude:-82.5452. LOGO
Link to
to Dept.of Elevation:2085.25 ft** NOAA
Commernce 'source:ESRI Maps Home
Home Page **source:USGS Page
POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
G.M.Bonnin,D.Martin,B.Lin,T.Parzybok,M.Yekta,and D.
Riley
NOAA,National Weather Service,Silver Spring,Maryland
PF tabular I PF graphical I Maps & aerials
PF tabular
PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90%confidence intervals(in inches)1
Duration Average recurrence interval(years)
1 2 5 10 25 50 100 J=
5-min 0.364(0.328-0.404) 0.433(0.391-0.480) 0.519(0.468-0.576) 0.585(0.526-0.648) 0.670(0.598-0.741) 0.736(0.652-0.813) 0.801(0.707-0.887) 0.867(
10-min 0.581(0.523-0.645) 0.692(0.625-0.768)10.832(0.750-0.923)11 0.936(0.841-1.04) 1.07(0.953-1.18) 1.17(1.04-1.29) 1.27(1.12-1.41) 1.37
15-min 0.726(0.654-0.807) 0.870(0.786-0.966)1 1.05(0.948-1.17) 1.18(1.06-1.31) 1.35(1.21-1.50)11 1.48(1.32-1.64) 1.61(1.42-1.78) 1.73
30-min 0.995(0.897-1.11) 1.20(1.09-1.33)ji 1.49(1.35-1.66) 11 1.72(1.54-1.90) 2.01(1.79-2.22)11 2.23(l.98-2.47)11 2.46(2.18-2.73) 2.70
60-min 1.24(1.12-1.38) 1.51(l.36-1.67)11 1.92(1.73-2.13) 11 2.23(2.01-2.47) 2.67(2.38-2.95)11 3.03(2.69-3.34)11 3.39(3.00-3.76) 3.78
2-hr 1.45(1.30-1.61) 1.76(1.58-1.95) 2.22(1.99-2.46) 11 2.59(2.32-2.87) 3.11(2.76-3.45) 3.53(3.12-3.91) 3.97(3.48-4.41) 4.44
3-hr 1.55(1.40-1.73) 1.87(1.68-2.08) 2.34(2.11-2.60) 2.73(2.45-3.04)11 3.30(2.93-3.67) 3.78(3.33-4.20) 4.28(3.74-4.76) 4.82
6-hr 1.92(1.76-2.12) 2.29(2.09-2.51) 2.82(2.57-3.10) 3.28(2.98-3.60) 3.94(3.55-4.33) 4.51(4.03-4.94) 5.12(4.52-5.62) 5.78
12-hr 2.43(2.24-2.65) 2.90(2.66-3.16) 3.55(3.26-3.87) 4.08(3.74-4.45) 4.81(4.39-5.24) 5.41(4.92-5.90) 6.02(5.44-6.58) 6.66
24-hr 2.87(2.66-3.11) 3.44(3.20-3.74) 4.24(3.93-4.60) 4.88(4.51-5.28) 5.76(5.30-6.22) 6.47(5.94-6.99) 7.20(6.58-7.77) 7.96
2-day 3.41(3.18-3.67) 4.07(3.79-4.39) 4.97(4.62-5.35) 5.68(5.27-6.11) 6.66(6.16-7.16) 7.45(6.87-8.01) 8.26(7.59-8.89) 9.10
3-day 3.64(3.39-3.91) 4.34(4.05-4.66) 5.25(4.89-5.64) 5.97(5.55-6.40) 6.95(6.44-7.45) 7.73(7.14-8.29) 8.53(7.85-9.16) 9.34
4-day 3.87(3.61-4.14) 4.61(4.30-4.93) 5.53(5.16-5.92) 6.26(5.84-6.70) 7.24(6.73-7.74) 8.01(7.42-8.57) 8.80(8.11-9.42) 9.58
7-day 4.51(4.22-4.84) 5.36(5.02-5.75) 6.43(6.01-6.89)ji 7.28(6.80-7.80) 8.43(7.84-9.02) 9.34(8.67-10.00) 10.3(9.49-11.0) 11.2
10-day 5.17(4.88-5.50) 6.12(5.77-6.51) 7.27(6.85-7.73) 8.17(7.70-8.68) 9.39(8.82-9.98) 10.4(9.70-11.0) 11.3(10.6-12.0) 12.3
20-day 7.04(6.66-7.44) 8.28(7.84-8.75) 9.62(9.10-10.2) 10.7(10.1-11.3) 12.0(11.3-12.7) 13.0(12.3-13.8)11 14.0(13.2-14.9) 15.0
30-day 8.64(8.21-9.11) ii 10.1(9.63-10.7) 11.6(11.0-12.2)11 12.7(12.1-13.4) ii 14.1(13.3-14.9)11 15.1(14.3-15.9)11 16.1(15.2-17.0) 17.0
45-day 11.0(10.5-11.5)ji 12.8(12.2-13.5) il 14.5(13.8-15.2)11 15.7(14.9-16.4)11 17.1(16.3-18.0)11 18.1(17.2-19.0)11 19.1(18.1-20.0) 19.9
60-day 13.2(12.6-13.9) 11 15.4(14.7-16.2)11 17.2(16.4-18.1) 11 18.5(17.6-19.5)11 20.0(19.1-21.1)11 21.1(20.1-22.3)11 22.1(21.0-23.3) 23.0
1 Precipitation frequency(PF)estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series(PDS).
Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90%confidence interval.The probability that precipitation frequency estimates(f
interval)will be greater than the upper bound(or less than the lower bound)is 5%.Estimates at upper bounds are not checked against probable maximum p
than currently valid PMP values.
Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information.
Back to Top
PF graphical
Years Legend
curve plots .,Durations Legend
Back to Top
Maps&aerials
Small scale terrain
file:///Z:/Projects/D/Duke%20Energy/Asheville%20Airport/12%20-%20NCDEQ%2090-day%20Comment%20Response/2%20-%20Hydraulic%20Calcul... 1/3

Attachment B
HydroCAD Analysis Report

tffi* DUKE Paul President
5 Senior Vice President
ENERGY® Environmental, Health&Safety
526 South Church Street
LC3XP
Charlotte,NC 28202
980.373.0409
August 17,2018
Mr.G. Landon Davidson, P.G.
Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Asheville Regional Office
2090 U.S.Highway 70
Swannanoa, NC 28778
RE: Response to DEQ Letter Dated July 31, 2018— Review and Request for Additional Information 60-
inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe at Area I CCP Fill,Asheville Airport
Dear Mr. Davidson:
Duke Energy is in receipt of the above-referenced letter which was sent to the Greater Asheville
Regional Airport Authority(ARA) and Duke Energy. The letter requested certain activities be completed
in regards to the 60-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) corridor that bisects the Area I ash structural fill
located at the ARA. On July 31, 2018, Mr. Michael Reisman with the ARA contacted Mr. John Toepfer
with Duke Energy to discuss said letter. In a follow-up email to Mr.Toepfer, Mr. Reisman indicates that
the ARA is accepting responsibility for, and undertaking the actions necessary to comply with and
respond to the letter. Consequently, Duke Energy will not be otherwise responding or taking any action
in response to the DEQ letter, given that the ARA submitted a letter dated August 6, 2018 to DEQ which
specified a course of action to comply with the DEQ letter.
Mr. Reisman's email also expresses a willingness to work with Duke Energy to set up a discussion
concerning on-going issues and long term maintenance and care responsibilities for Area 1. Duke
Energy has been seeking such a discussion and welcomes it, assuming that it leads to a specific
allocation of responsibilities regarding the maintenance and care of Area 1. We believe such an
allocation of responsibilities is essential to addressing DEQ's concerns and to provide for the timely
completion of the work that DEQ has directed be performed at Area 1.
If you have any questions or need any clarification regarding the information provided, please contact
Ed Sullivan at [e-mail] or at 980-373-3719 at your convenience.
Respect ully submitted,
Paul Draovi
Senior Vice resident, Environmental, Health &Safety
cc: Mr. Michael Reisman-ARA

DocuSign Envelope ID:73D0700B-63A2-4DDF-8EC7-1A02D59B7D71
60-inch Pipe Condition Assessment
Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority
Asheville, NC
Prepared for:
Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority
. y
heville
REGIONAL AIRPORT
Take the easy,way out.
Prepared by:
Kimley-Horn and Associates,Inc. Hydro structures,PA
333 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600 126 Commerce Court
Raleigh,NC 27601 Pittsboro,NC 27312
Kimley*Horn HTDRQSTRUCTURET
\0\1 a 11111/,j/CARo
c� Igned by:•;
oe ve- 1
°. CE1782914,D5Q43E>�
1/10/203.9
���Illlllll��
January 8th, 2019
. 1

����U��� �^��� ����~�^��� �����������= Ple -- ' '' - -x- --- --'-' ' -- ''-
w�� �,
Take the easy way out. 2028Report
�� � ��� �� �� �� ����������������
U �� K� U . U� & 0 � � '& D U� U U� A� U ��
� � ������� �� � �� �� � � � ��� � � ��
REPORTIntroduction..............................................................................................................................................................3
Scopeof Work...........................................................................................................................................................4
SiteVisit..................................................................................................................................................................4'6
Existing Pipeline Background Information............................................................................................................7
PipelineStationing................................................................................................................................................7,8
Existing Video Inspection Data and Review..........................................................................................................O
Condition Assessment Rating Definitions........................................................................................................8-1O
Overall Findings.'--'-------'-------_----------'—'-------''_'lU,l1
60'nch Pipe Assessment bv Sections...........................................................................................................13'21
Typical Repair/ Rehabilitation Options ........................................................................................................22-24
RecommendationsSummary.........................................................................................................................24'2S
AdditionalConsiderations ..............................................................................................................................26-2S
APPENDIX A_ CADD Drawings
Pre-Fill Drainage Exhibit with Defects(1)...........................................................................................................S1
Pre-Fill Drainage Exhibit with Defects(2)............................................................................................................32
Post-Fill Drainage Exhibit with Defects(2)..........................................................................................................S3
Post-Fill Drainage Exhibit with Defects(2)..........................................................................................................S4
Post-Fill Drainage Exhibit with Defects and 2015Aeha| /11.............................................................................S5
Post-Fill Drainage Exhibit with DefectsandZ01S Aerial /7L-------------------'--S6
Old Stream Bed Fill -Ground Water Diagram...................................................................................................S7
APPENDIX B _ Complete Defect Tables with Rescorings
6O'nch RCP DefectTab|e................................................................................................................................... 1,2
54-nch RCP Defect Table.......................................................................................................................................3
lO'noh RCP DefectTable....................................................................................................................................''3
Definitions ................................................................................................................................................................4
APPENDIX C-Duke Energy OriginalPipeInspection Report
Cover ..........................................................................................................................................................................1
Assessment and Recommendations--------------------------------------2,]
Attachmentsand Pictures.................................................................................................................................4-48
2
Kimleyd)Horn

e 60-Inch Pipen id sSe$s nt
R EG1OIdAL A"1RPO KT
Take the easy way out. 2018 Report
INTRODUCTION
A stormdrain improvement project on
the Northeast side of the Asheville
Regional Airport was implemented in
2008/2009. The purpose of this project r
was to extend an existing 54-inch pipe i ~
system that drained a portion of the
Airport Terminal area and general s
aviation parking lots through a large
ravine where a jurisdictional stream and ��,
wetland was present. The pipe extension
included a 60-inch Class V reinforced +�
concrete pipe (RCP)that is approximately
1100 feet Ion . A grading plan to fill this 'RCr� ;, � 'i
and low area was also completed. 4° �r
pipe
This pipe and fill would allow for future
development as well as provide a
location to waste coal ash byproduct [, - ,
from the local Duke Energy Asheville ?' ;= � ,i x
Plant. The coal ash was separated from �,, .'a• ,'
the pipe location by surrounding the pipe "
with suitable fill material for the entire .µ `, +{' �
3j
length of the pipe including 25 feet on
g p�p g
each side (50 feet in total width). InA. t �
addition, the coal ash fill areas were
capped at surface and on the sides b r �* ��
IN
ca
pp Y �" I.'�' ,, r ��� " •if i' ,
a layer of suitable fill material ranging a .� , _;P4 t �.,��;��.,+��• � `:.
from approximately 2-6 feet in depth. .
This pipe received an annual inspection NIJ
- �.�
•f z t �°
in February of 2018 and received a � )
NASSCO PACP pipe score of a 2 out of a Figure 1: Site Aerial with Pipeline in Red
5,which is considered fair condition with
a moderate risk of failure per the previous report provided by Coal Combustion Products (CCP)
Engineering. This prior report was shared with NC Department of Environmental Quality. Staff at the
Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority did not agree with the NASSCO rating system utilized to
establish the base line condition for this large diameter pipe. It is the belief of Airport staff that the
NASSCO grading system is primarily intended for smaller diameter pipe used for water lines, sanitary
sewer lines, and storm systems. Prior to accepting this pipe inspection report as final, the Greater
Asheville Regional Airport Authority has reached out to Kimley-Horn and associates to perform an
independent pipe assessment and recommendation of repairs for large diameter storm pipe systems as
typically done bythe North Carolina Department of Transportation.
3
Kimley>>>Horn HT_DR®STRUCTURET

�"�Mffle ®I c e Con iti Ssess e t
R-PORT
Take the easy way out. 2018 Report
Scope of Work:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley-Horn) was engaged by the Greater Asheville Regional Airport
Authority to perform an independent pipe inspection and recommendation of repairsfor the 60-inch RCP.
Kimley-Horn was contracted to perform the following tasks:
• One (1) Site Visit
o Duration of 1 day including travel
o Coordinate with subconsultant (Hydrostructures)onsite
• Coordination with Airport and subconsultant
• Evaluation of the Client provided CCTV video, report, and accompanying information from the
inspection completed by others in February 2018.
• Coordination with DEQ(one conference call anticipated)
• Deliverables
o PDF document with results of the evaluation of the Client provided CCTV video and
accompanying information and a summary report with findings and repairoptions. The
sealed reportwill include a professional engineer's independent evaluation of the60-inch
pipe based on generally accepted engineering practices for large diameter pipe. This
report is intended to provide an existing condition summary and recommended repair
options for consideration of the Client.
Site Visit:
On November 28, 2018, Dan Robinson, P.E. and Jordan Bendl, E.1 (both with Kimley-Horn) conducted a
site visit to meet with Airport Staff and to perform an above ground investigation of the project area.
Kimley-Horn was accompanied by representatives of Hydrostructures(Doug Greenlee and Kenton Brown)
during the site visit. An internal inspection of the 60-inch pipe was not performed because confined
space entry for inspection would be required and was not included in this scope of work. The site visit
findings included:
• Observed final grading of site
t
r
a
4
Kim lee, >))Horn HTDROSTRUC ORES!

604n(ch Pipe Condition Assessment
Caville
REG1ON`A4 Jill R;P O'R-f
Take the easy Vay out. 2018 Report
• Performed a visual inspection through the grate of a drop inlet immediately upstream of where
60-inch pipe was installed. Infiltration of ground water entering adjacent to and over the existing
54-inch pipes was observed.
E,
• Performed a pipe outlet inspection of the 60-inch RCP. The 60-inch RCP had a grate bolted to the
outlet for security reasons and had collected some minor debris. This outlet is stable and the
riprap plunge pool contained standing water
"r s,
'T �f i
� ` : � nor ��;, ��_ $;•
r � o
y
e ,YI
• Performed a pipe outlet inspection of the 18-inch RCP. This pipe begins at Vault-2 and diverts the
low flow storm events from the 60-inch RCP to the original stream location. This outlet is stable
and contained live flow which indicates the likely presence of groundwater entering the pipe
system upstream.
s
`Y
5
Kimley)) Horn Hy-DR®STRUCTURET

sg, i-+. ,� �'�, "�� n f�W J.J' �''.� � `• 'LF y�!''�°h F ���i S !i � r yF g���'
t� � � \ •1'�"��,�:. fir � !t "' .:i`s *3��..i„h
i.� xF 1� � ,'+•.� f I. a r�`�`�'`�-'�`�id- t�l v1<�i tY+�,�ayi�.��� yy.
"ti'rR�_''�s��n•
4'K ��� >�.r`s�✓-{ lam'�����s'!i�'' S-j»''�� ��:y(�.,r`�y'�yi�h `' -� � � ���
'YAw,+1 � + Y��FR. ( '?.�ti ��3�Y>y�'r w a�'e c'c;s�•'a'��in
454
_ 4
�.4 k� 3>,x'� ✓` � �t'y ,r�` -�, +14%`...QY.�'Y't'' f °��"'S. rr
�����"�r�'';' �ice. `• �' �� r''tL' �:^"''""�ti'�'�.3+���`''w �` m�a�,.-`
s

Ple - c s Con i ° nAssess e'
Take the easy way out. 2018 Report
Existing Pipeline Background Information:
The video inspection revealed writing inside the pipe (see Figure 2 below). The team confirmed that this
pipe was manufactured by Rinker Materials and contacted a product engineer at Rinker Materials to
understand the nomenclature.
The nomenclature is translated as follows:
• Cemex=cement supplier
• C5 indicates Class V in accordance with the design drawings
• 60" =diameter
� t� +4 '
• O/R =O-ring (gasketed) pipe
• C W =Wall C wall type could be A B or C)
• 9-26-08=date of manufacture
• C76 = ASTM C76 standards for reinforced concrete -
pipe Figure 2: Writing Inside the Pipe
Key points
• The ASTM C76 standards requires that Class V RCP, with Wall C, be constructed with 6,000 PSI
concrete and three cages of reinforcing steel.
• Class B bedding was specified in the design drawings which appears to correspond with Type 1
bedding requirements based on the American Concrete Pipe Association guidance. ASTM C76
design loading for RCP is based on allowance of cracking up to 0.01-inches in width. Based on
loading tables,Class V RCP withType I bedding can support up 51 vertical feet of cover. Per record
drawings given to the team from the airport, maximum cover overtop the 60-inch pipeline is 36
feet. It should also be noted that NCDOT Guidelines recommend the max vertical cover over Class
V RCP to be 40 feet.
• Green nitrite gasketswere used in thejoints to attempt to make the pipe watertight. Nitrile rubber
is also resistant to solvents and petroleum.
• The pipe appears to have an interior coating,but we cannot confirm the type based on the visual
inspection or our research from calling the manufacturer.
• Both vaults are buried and are inaccessible.
Pipeline Stationing:
Project stationing for the Asheville Regional Airport Pipe inspection was established based on design Plan
and Profile drawings that were prepared for the project by WK Dickson Engineering in 2007. Additional
record drawings produced in 2008-2009 by Avcon Engineering also utilized the original WK Dickson
Engineering's stationing. The reason for using this stationing is to create a uniform starting and ending
point which allows locations to be referenced from left to right for the entire project site. Pipe stationing
begins at STA 10+65 at the outlet of the 60-inch RCP (north most end of the site) and ends at STA 23+40
where the grate(CB-1) and Vault-1 are located at the airport hangar (south side of the project site). The
pipe of interest reviewed by the team is the 60-inch RCP which extends to STA 21+79. A start station of
10+65 and end of 21+79 equates to a total length of 1114 feet for the entire stretch of 60-inch RCP.
The following Condition Assessment report has been prepared referencing the project stationing as
detailed above;however, the raw distances from the CCTV video access points are equated and available
7
Kimley>>>Horn Hy-DR®STRUCTURET

shevo�le60-Inch PipeCondition ssess
REGIONAL AIRPORT
Take the easy way out. 2018 Report
in the Complete Defect Tables with Rescorings located in Appendix B. The culvert has been sub-divided
into 6 sections based on structural changes in culvert condition throughout the entire pipe.
Existing Video Inspection Data and Review:
The team was provided with video inspection data performed by Bio-Nomic Services from February 2018.
The camera operator for Bio-Nomic Services logged observations using ITPipes software. This software
was written using the National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO) Pipeline Assessment
Certification Program (PACP) observation / defect terminology and scoring methodology. Once an
observation /defect is logged with the software, a NASSCO PACP grade score is automatically assigned.
NASSCO PACP attemptsto standardize observation /defect identification and scoring across the industry
but still relies on the camera operator or certified review technician to identify defects correctly. While
NASSCO PACP methodology can be used to visually inspect any pipeline, the terminology and scoring is
more biased toward gravity sewerpipelines.
The team reviewed the digital video and the report logs. Report logs list each defect / observation
identified accordingtothe clockposition in the pipe and associated grade score. Hydrostructures believes
that the inspection performed by Bio-nomic Service was complete and suitable for our visual evaluation.
The camera operator performed a thorough inspection and appeared to log all defects (or potential
defects and points of interest).
NASSCO PACP recognizes two families of defects; structural defects and operation and maintenance
(O&M)defects. Structural defects are defined as defects within the structure of the pipe including cracks,
fractures, broken pipe, collapsed pipe, offset or separated joints, surface damage, etc. Operation and
maintenance defects include deposits and sediments (grease, sand and other debris), mineral
encrustation, roots, infiltration, sags, obstructions, etc.that affect the pipe's ability to operate properly.
A grade score from 1 to 5 is assigned depending on the severity of the defect, a score of 1 is the least
severe,a grade score of 5 is the most severe. These scores can be found on the report logs prepared by
Bio-Nomic Services. The grade scoring was dependent on the type/severity of defect interpreted by the
camera operator at the time of inspection. The original Bio-Nomic Services Inspection Report and pictures
are located in the Appendix C.
Condition Assessment Rating Definitions:
Hydrostructures reviewed the video inspection data and re-evaluated the logged observations/defects
and assigned grade scores more tailored to the evaluation of large diameter stormwater conveyance.
Kimley-Horn also reviewed the video inspection data and coordinated with Hydrostructures to reach
agreement on the rescoring of the defects. The team utilized NCDOT drainage design / inspection
experience with large diameter pipes when evaluating and scoring the defects. The team also maintained
the methodology of two separate categories for defects; structural and operation and maintenance
(0&M) as described above.
Based on our evaluations, each defect was assigned a grade rating from 1 to 5, with 1 being the least
severe and 5 being the most severe.Grade ratings utilize the criteria described below for both structural
and O&M defects. Grade scores are tailored toward RCP for stormwater conveyance. Assessment of
condition and assignment of defect grade scores are based solely on visual reviewof the interior of the
pipelines.
8
Kimley)))Horn H®DR®ST'RUC`PURET

>V
shev fie 60-Inch Pipe Condition Assessment
P'0 R-T
rake tFhe easy way out. 2018 Report
Structural Defect Grade Scores
• Grade 5 — Most severe defects that require immediate attention including; collapsed pipe
exceeding 10%of cross-sectional area,widespread pipe wall deterioration where reinforcing steel
is visible indicating significant surface loss, areas with missing pipe wall, large holes with visible
voids behind the pipe wall, etc. This grade rating would indicate structural failure and loss of
structural integrity.
• Grade 4—Severe defects including; deformed pipe less than 10% of cross-sectional area, large
offset joints greaterthan 1.5 times the pipe wall thickness, broken pipe with pipe wall displaced
and void visible behind pipe wall, small hole with visible void behind pipe wall, widespread pipe
wall deterioration where aggregate is exposed indicated surface loss, hinge fracturing occurring
at 12, 3,6,and 9 o'clock indicating stress from excessive vertical loading or improper installation,
etc.
• Grade 3 — Moderate defects that could become Grade 4 within the next 5 years including;
fractured pipe with a visible opening(fractures can occur longitudinal,circumferential,in multiple
directions, spiraled, and hinge), medium offset joints less than 1 times the pipe wall thickness,
damaged pipe surface that exposes reinforcement steel in an isolated area, hinged cracking
indicated stress from vertical loading, etc.
• Grade 2—Defectsthat have not progressed to a point tojeopardize structural integrity including;
minor cracks where a break link is visible on the pipe surface but the pipe surface is not visibly
open (cracks can occur longitudinal, circumferential,in multiple directions, spiraled, and hinge).
• Grade 1 — Potential defects including; surface cracks, scratches from installation, cracks and
blemishes in pipe coatings,other blemishes on the pipe surface, etc. These are the least severe
defects.
O&M Defect Grade Scores
• Grade 5—The most severe O&M defects including; major sags that reduce pipe capacityand hold
debris, gushing groundwater infiltration from pipe joints or structural defects, root balls growing
in through pipe joints or structural defects exceeding 50% of pipe diameter, heavy deposit and
sediments exceeding 50% of pipe diameter, etc. These defects typically require immediate
attention.
• Grade 4 — Severe defects including; sags that reduce pipe capacity, running groundwater
infiltration from pipe joints or structural defects, major root balls or tap roots in pipe joints or
structural defects, heavy deposits and sediments, etc.
• Grade 3— Moderate defects including; minor sags, dripping groundwater infiltration from pipe
joints or structural defects,minor root growth through pipe joints or structural defects,mode rate
deposits and sediments up to 10%of pipe capacity,etc.
9
Kimley)OHorn HY_DROsTRUCTURW

sf�evMe 60-Inch PipeCondition ASsessment
R EGIOMAL AIRPORT
Take the easy way out. 2018 Report
• Grade 2 — Minor defects including; weeping infiltration from pipe joints or structural defects,
mineral encrustation on pipe joints or structural defects indicating prolonged minor groundwater
infiltration, light root growth through pipe joints or structural defects, light deposits and
sediments buildup, etc.
• Grade 1—The least severe O&M defects including; infiltration stains and discoloration on pipe
joints or discoloration on structural defects, isolated fine roots, isolated areas of light deposits
and sediments.
Overall Findings:
A detailed assessment and breakdown of every defect is provided in the Complete Defect Tables with
Rescorings located in Appendix B. The table below presents the number of structural and O&M grade
defects overall for the 3 different pipes on the project.
Pipe Number of Structural Defects Number of O&M Defects
Grade 0 Grade 0
54"RCP Grade 4 0 Grade 4 0
(CB-1 to Vault-1) Grade 3 1 Grade 3 2
Grade 2 1 Grade 2 3
Grade 1 6 Grade 1 3
Grade 5 0 Grade 5 0
60"RCP Grade4 0 Grade 4
(Outfall-1 to Vault-T) Grade 3 1 Grade 3 3
Grade 2 13 Grade 2 17
Grade 1 8 Grade 1 33
Grade 5 0 Grade 5 0
18"RCP Grade 4 0 Grade 4 0
(Vault-2 to O tfLrll--2) Grade.3 1 Grade 3 1
Grade2 1 Grade 2
Grade 1 0 Grade 1 2
In general, the pipes are in good structural condition. Only two (2) grade 3 structural defects were
identified on the 60-inch pipe and 54-inch pipe combined and are likely a result of mis-handling during
installation. Both defects are atthe joint where there is a chipped piece of the pipe. The chipped piece
in the 54-inch (defect#95, Appendix B) at STA 21+87 reveals a small section of the inner cage reinforcing
steel. The chipped piece in the 60-inch (defect # 65, Appendix B), at STA 18+73 does not reveal any
reinforcing steel but does have heavy groundwater infiltration. A grade 3 structural defect was identified
on the 18-inch RCP section evaluated(defect# 97,Appendix B). There appears to be surface damage to
the pipe or interior coating (if a coating exists).
The majority of lower scoring structural defects are related to minor cracks. Cracks are defined by their
shape and include longitudinal, circumferential, multiple,etc. Most cracks appear to be surface cracks or
cracks in an interior coating (if a coating exists). Concrete pipe loading design assumes cracking of up to
0.01-inch in width as the pipe gets it structural strength by its thickness and reinforcing steel and not
tensile strength. Also, some of the cracks appear to be undergoing autogenous healing. Autogenous
10
Kimlep Horn Hy-DROSTRUCTURET

�"�M iIle ®Ins Pie on iti n sess eR P OR T
Take the easy way out. 2018 Report
healing occurs when calcium carbonateforms inside of a crackandwith the presence of moisture and un-
hydrated cement powder, the curing process will regenerate and fuse the crack.
Significant groundwater infiltration and staining was observed through pipe joints, cracks,and pinholes.
We did not observe heavy sediments in the pipe that would suggest that the leaks are migrating soil from
outside the pipe and creatingvoids. However,the slope of the existing pipe is steep enough to naturally
flush out sediment so it is difficult to tell if sediment is migrating through the joints. The presence of
sinkholes above the pipe would suggest soil migration, but this was not observed. Stormwater conveyance
pipelines are not typically designed to be watertight. Concrete is naturally permeable,therefore anycrack
or crack (or pinhole) in the interior coating (if a coating exists) will leak (or stain) in the presence of
groundwater.
Stains were also visible in the buried vault boxes when the camera operator panned around inside them.
The 60-inch pipe has been sub-divided into 6 sections based on structural changes in pipe condition. The
Pipe Condition Assessment Plan and profile sheets that display the defects graphically within the 6 pipe
sections is located in Appendix A. See the following pages for a detailed summary of the pipe conditions
and recommendations within each pipe section.
11
Kirk ey>>>Horn HT®R®STRUCTURES®

S. 1E'Vtle 60-Inch Pipe Condition Assessment
R P O R T -
Take the easy way out. 2018 Report
SECTION ONE
Culvert Section: 1
Beginning Station: STA 10+65
Ending Station: STA11+21
Length: 56 feet
Pipe Size: 60-inch
Pipe Class: V
Ewa
Section Material Not Performed "
Testing:
Culvert Section 1 looking upstream .
Section Description and Condition Assessment:
This shortsection of the 60-inch pipe begins atthe pipeoutfall and ends atVault-2. The pipesection supports
approximately 2-3 feet of fill. Section 1 is considered to be in overall GOOD condition due to the minimal
observed localized deficiencies. Referto the typical section deficiencies summarized below.
Condition Ratings:
Overall: Good.
Typical Deficiencies:
a�Jt CIF�;v3+l� �tt 1 i� I '�'��r4•r. .� s" .. N�p^Ti•.3""s
'1S k. .. i,' at r s a
t , }
rrr
i
Recommendations For This Section:
• None Required
• See repair recommendations summary atthe end of the report and Appendix A
12
Kimlep Horn H!DROSTRUCTURES!

shewille 60-Inch Pipe Condition Assessment
R-E G1 O`N A'L A t R`Po RT
Take the easy way out. 2018 Report
SECTION TWO
Culvert Section: 2
Beginning Station: STA 11+21AIRPORT"
Ending Station: STA 13+00
Length: 179feet
Pipe Size: 60-inch
Pipe Class: V
Section Material Not Performed
Testing:
179.6 ft.
Culvert Section 2 looking upstream
Section Description and Condition Assessment:
This section of the 60-inch pipe begins at Vault-2 and ends at STA 13+00.This pipe section supports about 3
feet offill atthe beginning and about 20 feet atthe end. Section 2 is considered to be in overa I I GOOD condition
due tothe minimal observed localized deficiencies. Refertothe typical section deficiencies summarized below.
Condition Ratings:
Overall: Good
Typical Deficiencies:
DSIAH:VAULT 2! DSIAH:VAULT-2
�
Infiltration a in
q
a
Recommendations For This Section:
• None Required
• See repair recommendations summary at the end of the report and Appendix A
13
Kimley>>>Horn HYDROSTRUCTURW

lie 6 Inch Pipe Condition Assessment
-
Take the easy way out. 2018 Report
SECTION THREE
Culvert Section: 3
Beginning Station: STA13+00 '
Ending Station: STA 15+75
Length: 275 feet
Pipe Size: 60-inch
Pipe Class: V
Section Material Not Performed
Testing:
1297.2 ft. 2/15/2018
Culvert Section 3 looking upstream
Section Description and Condition Assessment:
This longer section of the 60-inch pipe begins at STA 13+00 and ends at 15+75. The pipe section supports
a pproxi mately 36 feet of fill which is the most out of any other section of the pipe.Section 3 is considered to
be in overall FAIRcondition with the exception of O&M defects#22 and#35 listed for repair below.The O&M
repairs recommended below are to ensure infiltration does not worsen and pull sediment in from the
surrounding soil.Referto the typical section deficiencies summarized below.
Condition Ratings:
Overall: Fair
Typical Deficiencies:
� t
}} i :A �
WITH I.S.
-,2,4512018
AA
1
14
KimleyA Horn HyDROSTRUCTURES9

s1�eyffle -Inch Pipe Condition s ess e t
REGIONA-L AIRPORT
Take the easy way out. 2018 Report
Recommendations For This Section:
The following are repair recommendations:
• Repair defect#22 STA 14+26—Grout inject joint to stop Infiltration Runner
• Repairdefect#35 STA 15+47—Grout inject joint to stop Infiltration Dripper
• See repair recommendations summary at the end of the report and Appendix A
15
Kimlep Horn HT_DROSTRUCTURET

Oj�A�MAJlie 60-Inch Pipe Condition Assessment
R•EGPOR�T
Take the easy way out. 2018 Report
SECTION FOUR
Culvert Section: 4
Beginning Station: STA 15+75
Ending Station: STA 18+50
Length: 275 feet
Pipe Size:. 60-inch
Pipe Class: V
Section Material Not Performed
Testing:
Culvert Section 4 looking upstream
Section Description and Condition Assessment:
This longer section of the 60-inch pipe begins at STA 15+75 and ends at 18+50. The pipe section supports
approximately 35 feet of fill.Section 4 is considered to be in overall GOOD condition with the exception of
O&M defects #41 and #49 listed for repair below. The O&M repairs recommended below are to ensure
infiltration does not worsen and pull sediment in from the surrounding soil. Refer to the typical section
deficiencies summarized below.
Condition Ratings:
Overall: Good
Typical Deficiencies:
.,, x
WRPORT
Infittration Stain. Infittration Runner,
490.5 ft.
,i k Sj
x • slf �ri
Lit
t
f
xls�
i
16
Kimley>>>Horn Hy-DROSTRUCTURET

revilie ®Inc Pipe onitio ssess enAL AIR
Take the easy way out. 2018 Report
Recommendations For This Section:
The following are repair recommendations:
• Repair defect#41 STA 15+79—Grout inject joint to stop Infiltration Runner
• Repairdefect#49 STA 16+53—Grout inject joint to stop Infiltration Runner
• See repair recommendations summary atthe end of the report and Appendix A
17
Kimlep Horn Hy-DR®STRUCTURET

sheville 60®Inch Pipe Condition Assessment
111 P'O R T
Take the easy way out. 2018 Report
SECTION FIVE
Culvert Section: 5
Beginning Station: STA 18+50
Ending Station: STA 19+00
Length: 50 feet
Pipe Size: 60-inch
Pipe Class: V
Section Material Not Performed
Testing:
ft. 2115/2018
Culvert Section 5 looking upstream
Section Description and Condition Assessment:
This shortsection of the 60-inch pipe begins at STA 18+50 and ends at STA 19+00. The pipe section supports
approximately 35 feet of fill. Section 5 is considered to be inoverall POOR condition due to the presenceofa
large infiltration area and a moderate structural defect(grade3)that could become a grade4within the next
5 years. The 0&M repairs recommended below are to ensure infiltration does not worsen and pull sediment
in from the surrounding soil.The repairs will also seal the chipped joint(structural concern).Refer to the typical
section deficiencies summarized below.
Condition Ratings:
Overall: Poor
Typical Deficiencies:
'AIRF,.
IN
}}' s
'YT
rAl
t
18
Kimley»)Horn H!DROSTRUCTUREW

SheVllie ®Inch Pipe Condition Assessment
--RE•GIOPI;A;L; AIRPORT
Take the easy way out. 2018 Report
` .
�01
S VA • emu.
l .. } e � '�'�f♦ t, 5 bey
b
733.2 ft.
Recommendations For This Section:
The following are repair recommendations:
• Repa'irdefect#61 STA 18+55—Grout inject joint to stop Infiltration Runner
• Repair defect#64&#65 STA 18+73-Grout inject joint to stop infiltration and patch chip with
cementitious repair mortar
• See repair recommendations summary atthe end of the report and Appendix A
19
Kimley*Horn HYDROSTRUCTURET

sheMJ a -Inch Pipe Condition Assessment
R E G1 ON:A L. A t R P 0 RT
Take the easy way out. 2018 Report
SECTION SIX
Culvert Section: 6
Beginning Station: STA 19+00
Ending Station: STA21+79
Length: 279 feet
Pipe Size: 60-inch
Pipe Class: V
Section Material Not Performed
Testing:
797.2 ft. 1 18,
Culvert Section 6 looking upstream
Section Description and Condition Assessment:
This last section of the 60-inch pipe begins at STA 19+00 and ends at Vault-1 (STA 21+79). The pipe section
supports approximately 25-30 feet of fill.Section 6 is considered to be in overall GOOD condition with the
exception of O&M defect #73 listed for repair below. The O&M repair recommended below is to ensure
infiltration does not worsen and pull sediment in from the surrounding soil. Refer to the typical section
deficiencies summarized below.
Condition Ratings:
Overall: Good
Typical Deficiencies:
SHL
!AIRPORT
�
%
h a Y yy,t i
Ytt 1 tt�r"Crack Multi le
g t`
Infiltration Runner 4- P
Y
9C2.6 tt. I1
20
KimlepMorn Hy-DROSTRUCTURET

shev!IIe 0-Inch Pipe Condition Assessment
REGIONAL AIRPORT
Take the easy way out. 2018 Report
Recommendations For This Section:
The following are repair recommendations:
• Repair defect#73—Grout inject joint to stop Infiltration Runner
• See repair recommendations summary at the end ofthe report and Appendix A
21
Kimley>>>Horn HYDROsTRUCtURET

shevolle60-Inch Pipe-Inc Condition ASsessment
R E G I O W A L A I R P O R T -
Take the easy way out. 2018 Report
Typical Repair I Rehabilitation Options:
[.Test and Seal Grouting
Test and seal grouting is accomplished internally using a grout packer to seal voids, cracks, leaking pipe
joints, etc.within a pipe. Athree-part acrylamide grout is typically used for infiltration abatement and can
be used to fill voids. Acrylamide grout cures to a highly elastomeric, non-shrinking rubber compound. The
grout packer is pulled into place from the access manholes. The grout packer accomplishes two major
tasks; 1) pressure tests the joint (or defect)2) injects the joint with grout. The packer is equipped with a
flow through orifice which allows the work to be accomplished with minimal (or no) bypass pumping and
flow control.
Test and seal grouting is typically recommended when leaking joints are present and the pipe is not
structurally deteriorated.Test and seal grouting is typically performed on RCP and other pipes with push-
on joints. Pipes must be cleaned to remove scaling and encrustation around the joints (or defects) that
require grouting.All joints within a pipe should be tested and grouted.
Typical Industry Cost(Dependent on Pipe Size and Grout Usage):
8"—12"_$150.00/Joint
15"—18"_$225.00/Joint
21"—30"_$350.00/Joint
36"—48"_$450.00/Joint
6011 _$550.00/Joint
II. Manned-Entry Chemical Grout Injection/Patching
Pipes 60-inches and larger allow for manned-entry access if proper confined space and safety
provisions are taken. The pipe must be supplied with constant fresh air using a largefan blower setup
at an access manhole. Constant open channel, two-way communication between the attendants)
andthe personnel enteringthe pipe(entrants)must be maintained. The entrants alsowear necessary
personal protective equipment (PPE)and carrya four-gas monitor and emergency bottles of supplied
air in case of emergency.
Leaking pipe joints can be grouted and sealed from the inside using a manned-entry approach. A
hammer drill is used to drill holes to the outside of the pipe along the circumference of the joint or
leaking component /defect. Chemical grout is pumped through these injection ports to the exterior
of the pipe to where it will fill any voids, stop infiltration,and seal thejoint. A two-part,polyurethane
grout is typically used. Polyurethane grout is substantially more expensive than acrylamide grout
(used in test and seal grouting). After the joint is sealed with chemical grout, a high strength
cementitious repair mortar is applied over thejoint and injection port holes and troweled to a smooth
finish to reinforce the repair.
Manned-entry injection is preferred over test and seal grouting in large storm pipes because of the
quality of repair using a hands-on solution instead on monitoring progress through video inspection
22
Kimley>>>Horn HTDROSTRIJCTURES9

1�r'
,
sheville 60-Inch Pipe Condition ASsessment
REGIONAL AIRPORT
Take the easy way out. 2018 Report
equipment. The addition of the cementitious coating over the sealed joint, that can only be applied
by hand,insures that the repair is long-term solution.
Stained joints (defects or other components) that are not actively leaking can be grouted with the
cementitious repair mortar,without chemical grout injection beforehand.
• Typical Industry Cost(Dependent on Pipe Size and Grout Usage):
60"=$2,500.00/Joint
72"=$3,000.00/Joint
III. Internal ClPP Sectional Liner(CI PP Spot Repair)
Sectional cured-in-place spot repairs are ideal for patching holes and other isolated, non-deformed
structural defects. Spot repair patches can be used for infiltration control when hydrophilic 0-rings
or caulk is used between the host pipe and ends of the repair patch. Most manufactures have repair
patches available up to 42-inches and lengths of 2,4,and 8-feet are common. Patches arefiberglass
with epoxy resin or typical felt with vinylester resin.
Spot repairs are installed with a flow through bladder. The patch is secured to the inflatable bladder,
pulled into place,the bladder pressurized to form the patch tightly to the pipe surface and allowed
to cure ambiently. Because the bladder is flow through, little or no flow control is required during
installation
• Typical Industry Cost: 8" —12" = $4,000—$8,500
15"—18" = $10,000- $12,000
IV. Cured-in-Place Pipe(CIPP) Rehabilitation
For CIPP rehabilitation, a resin-impregnated felt liner is pulled or inverted through the existing pipe
and inflated with water and/or air/steam to form it against the walls of the host pipe. Once cured, a
structurally sound "pipe within a pipe" is formed.
The major advantage of CIPP rehabilitation is that it is trenchless, reducing construction time.
Therefore, CIPP rehabilitation is typically the least expensive large diameter rehabilitation method.
The major advantage to CIPP rehabilitation is that it is virtually trenchless, meaning disruption to the
surrounding area is minimized. Also, construction time for CIPP rehabilitation is much quicker
compared to open-cut replacement. CIPP cannot eliminate alignment problems or offset joints, as it
forms to the shape of the existing host pipe.
A major disadvantage of using CIPP in large diameter rehabilitation is the cleaning required before
installation. The pipe needs to be free of debris to insure that an acceptably round, wrinkle-free pipe
remains after installation. Heavy infiltration must also be reduced before the installation of the liner
(test and seal grouting, CIPP spot repairs, etc.)to insure no "cold spot" (uncured sections of liner)
23
Kirnley>>>H®rn HT_DROSTRUCTURET

60-Inch Pipe Condition Assessment
RE G/ N A, ille
'
Take the easy way out. 2018 Report
occur. Flow control is typically not a concern when rehabilitating storm piping since work can be
planned around wet weather.
The CIPP method is generally recommended for damaged pipes where upsizing to a largerdiameter
is not necessary. Liner thickness should be designed assuming the host pipe is fully deteriorated and
taking into consideration any external loading (i.e., highway, railroad, airport, etc.). Therefore, the
CIPP liner will be a structurally sound, self-supporting pipe capable of withstanding all external soil
and groundwater loads.
The expense of Cl PP liner grows exponentially for pipe greater than 48-inch diameter. Largediameter
liners must be "wet-out"on site (the process where the felt is saturated with the chemical resin). The
liner is heavy and harder to handle and invert through the pipe. Installation is more challenging and
curing time becomes days instead of hours because of the volume of water that must be heated and
circulated during curing.
• Typical Industry Cost: 8"—12"=$30.00-$45.00/LF
15"—18"=$65.00-$85.00/LF
21"—30"=$125.00-$250.00/LF
36"—48"=$275.00-$350.00/LF
60"—72"=$800.00-$1,200.00/LF
Recommendations Summary:
Based on the data review, findings and feasible repair alternatives presented, the team offers the
following recommendations.
Structural Repairs
Repair the isolated Grade 3 Structural defects. The chipped pipe in the 60-inch can be grouted with
cementitious repair mortar by a manned-entry installation. The active leak associated with the chipped
pipe joint(defect#65,Appendix B)at STA 18+73 should first be injected with chemical grout to stop active
infiltration. A cured-in-place spot repair is recommended on the 18-inch pipe segment to correct the
surface damage. Three structural repairs are recommended in the table below and the locations are
shown graphically in Appendix A.
STRUCTURAL REPAIR SUMMARY
Location Defect `Station Defect Type ,Grade Repair Recommendation Estimated Cost
Chipped Pipe with Patch with Cementitious
54"RCP #95 21+87 3 TBD
Reinforcement.Visible Repair Mortar
Chipped Pipe(with Inject Joint and Patch with
t RCP= ? #65 18+73 3 TBD
Infiltration) Cementitious Repair Mortar
38"RCP #97 See Appendix B Surface Damage 3 Install 18"CIPP Spot Repair TBD
24
Kimley*Horn HTDROSTRUCTURES°

lie 6 ®Inch i e Condition ssess' .
Takethe easy way out. 2018 Report
Operation and Maintenance Repairs:
Repairthe isolated Grade 3 and 40&M defects(see 0&M repair summarytable below) directly associated
with active groundwater infiltration by a manned-entry installation of chemical grout. Nine injections are
recommended as listed in the table below and shown graphically in Appendix A.
.
OPERATION-AND MAINTENANCE REPAIR SUMMARY TABLE a
3 Repair
Location Defect Station Defect Type O&M Grade. ., 7 Estimated Cost j'
�R ecomme"odatlon
s, Infiltration60'RCP3?. #22 14+26 4 Inject Joint TBD
Runner
Infiltration
60"RCP #35 15+47 3 Inject Joint TBD
Runner
Infiltration
66 RCP #41 15+79 3 Inject Joint TBD
Runner
Infiltration
60'.RCP'`` #49 16+53 3 Inject Joint TBD
Runner
0 Infiltration
6 4 Inject Joint TBD
Runner
` Infiltration
60' RCP.�° #64 18+73 4 Inject Joint TBD
Runner
Infiltration
60"RCP,: #72 19+67 Runner 4 Inject Joint TBD
Infiltration
54`RCP, #90 22+48 3 Inject Joint TBD
Runner
Infiltration
VAULT 2'�a` #96 21+75 3 Inject Vault Component TBD
Runner
Additional Repair Notes:
Cost for manned-entry patching and injection is dependent on several variables including the number of
joints requiring work and the gallons of grout required to seal the joint. Actual grout quantities utilized
during the repair will reveal any void space around the pipe and sediment lost due to infiltration.The unit
rate must also include the labor and compensation for the manned-entry setup and equipment. Since no
sinkholes were observed over the pipe, a typical unit cost would assume ten (10)gallons of grout per joint
and a production rate of 2 joints per day. An alternate approach is to perform the injection on a time and
material basis. Based on Client feedback,an opinion'of probable construction cost could be provided in
a future phase.
Additional assessment by manned-entry inspection is also recommended. The purpose of the inspection
will be to:
1) Inspect the buried vaults for defects and leaks.
2) Measure the crack openings and verify that the existing cracks are within safe structural
tolerances.
3) Verify the presence on an interior coating. Surface cracks may be limited to the coating.
25
Kimkey*Horn HY_DROSTRUCTURES9

sheVlI a 60-Inch Pipe Condition Assessment
RECIO'NAL A;1RPouT -
Take the easy way out. 2018 Report
Additional Considerations:
In addition to the items noted in the report,supplemental information relatedto the project site is noted
below for the Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority's consideration.
• This pipe evaluation report addresses all immediate repair needsfrom a Structural and Operations
and Maintenance perspective.. However, if the Authority intends on developing overtop of this
pipe and fill area, then additional repairs should be considered. These repairs would include
recommendations to completely eliminate infiltration at all leaking pipe joints to prevent
sediment loss around the pipe and prevent future sink holes.
• Based on the field observations noted in the report,it became apparent that there is a
significant amount of groundwater around the 60-inch pipe and old stream bed. This was
evident when we observed the following items:
• Infiltration of ground water entering a drop inlet adjacent to and over the existing 54-inch
pipes entering the drop inlet.
• Recent riprap slope protection and monitoring pins on the lower portions of the Northeast.
fill slope area adjacent to a wetland area. This fill slope appeared to have groundwater
leaking out at its toe of slope.
• Recent surface ditches on top of the fill area that drained to a 24-inch corrugated plastic
slope drain pipe. Based on conversations with Airport Authority, this recent work wasto
minimize surface water infiltration into the fill area.
• Prior sediment basin was likely filled in overtop of old stream bed. Gravel spillway/roadbed
contained live flow which indicates the presence of groundwater flowing out of the fill area
• Multiple infiltration locations were noted in the inspection report that are minor in nature
but do allow groundwater to infiltrate into the pipe.
• Infiltration is considered a defect in sanitary sewer lines because treating unnecessary
groundwater at the wastewater treatment plant is undesirable. However,in a stormwater pipe,
infiltration is not as much of a concern if the pipe joint is adequately wrapped such that sediment
is not pulling through the joints creating sinkholes above. We are unsure that the 60-inch pipe
joints are wrapped,but we are fairly certainthat nitrile watertight gasketswere utilized to try to
eliminate groundwater infiltration. If the pipe joints are under significant groundwater pressure,
then there is a future risk that coal ash laden groundwater could migrate to the leaky pipe joints
and contaminate the downstream environment. Infiltration at joints should continue to be
monitored and if deemed necessary, could be eliminated by extensive Cured-in-Place (CIPP)
rehabilitation.
• Sheet S-7 (Old Streambed fill groundwater diagram)located in Appendix A illustrates a concern
that the groundwater pressure conditions the 60-inch pipe is experiencing may be exacerbated
by the old erosion control basin that appears to have been filled in and left in place at the outlet
end of the natural channel. The stone that was placed in the old channel bed should provide a
conduit to allow groundwaterto migrate out of the fill area,but if it is filled over with sediment
then a plug could form that backs up groundwater upstream. Removing the sediment basin plug
-should be considered as a future improvement to minimize groundwater pressure on the pipe
and fill area.
26
Kim lee, »)Horn HYDROSTRUCTURES9

lie ®Inch Pipe Condition Assess et
REGIONAL AIR P O R T
Take the easy way out. 2018 Report
APPENDIXA CAD D DRA WINGS
27
Kimley>>>H®rn HTDR®STRUCTURESO

_
LO
ZZ
STRIEAM
2170
2160
2150
2130
LLI
2120
2100
_
_

� a 1
0
TYPE OF DEFECT,
MMM STRUCTURALIN PLANS BEFORE COAL ASH&DIRT F
sm
�TOURS SHOWN ARE FROM 2007
• 1 •
• 1
SHAPE LEGEND
STRUCTURAL DEFECT
DEFECT COLOR LEGEND
j IN
!GOOD CONDITION - LEAST SEVERE DEFECTS (1)
FAIR CONDITION - MINOR DEFECTS (2)
POOR CONDITION - MODERATE DEFECTS (3)
POOR CONDITION - SEVERE DEFECTS (4)
-=
i
18
PIPE
CONDITION
ASSESSMENT
PLANS
11 11 11 11 11 11 • 1/

1
•
1
0
TYPE OF DEFECT-==
STRUCTURAL
STRUCTURAL ©m
STRUCTURAL ©m
n •- v®
om
-1 �= ©m
om
L' �� om
�® STRUCTURAL ©m
•• ©®
, 1
.- • iiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiwilsii iiiiiiiiiiii
iUCTURAL DEFECT
1 B OPERATION & MAINT.DEFECT
i��i�i�� ii iii iiiiii ii.1•/�iiiiiiiiiiiiii f�7•iiiii iiiiii "'�
i iii— 7.r ��_ r.■��.�_ll•Jl.yiiiiii iiiiiiiiii iii L•�iiiii iiiiii
DEFECT COLOR LEGEND +iwww -...I�'LLs'1�.1L1--••••-.^•"��iiiviiiiiiiiii�ii=iiiii iiiiii
= iwiiiiwiww� iwwwwi—��i�
i
1 liiii�iiiiii►_�Iiw��CiiwiiiiI'rI,AP�ii�. iiiii�iiwii� 1
GOOD CONDITION1 iiii wwiwiwt•��aiw iiiiiii '[[�r(+�wi iiiwiiiiiwww
i
0FAIR , 1 • •• 1 iiiiiiiiiii iiii J` ��► ilt•i i 7iiiiiiiiiiii �
i
-=C��C�CCCCG: : FM--r-��r-��G:C=��=
POOR • 1 • MODERATE , iw
1 = i.l•� , r= =B :G �_____� 1_
iiiiwit♦��i_�ii.���1��������—/��9 sE,�E=�i�=��t:�7wiwiiiii=i�� -
iiii iii iiit•�iii.._ i ii�..�i iiii iiiii
mm
POOR CONDITION - SEVERE DEFECTS (4)
POOR CONDITION - MOST SEVERE DEFECTS (5)
la
i . • - 1 . , 1 iiii=�_—=__'_��.��� �C�e—�������������_�_�
iwwi�Gi =iiii��r.■�■ii^=MMW _'�CiiiMM
ii wi iw
1 1 - • . iiii .i iiiii. �i Iw— i�--iiiiiiii wiwiiwiiiiw
iiii t•�i i^���iR`�+� —�����iiiiiii wiwiiiiiiii=
,: 1 1 , 1 •. iiii �i Ci�_�ii��iii—���-� iiiiiiiii will iiiiiii
1 1 = --• 1 , - .•1 . _����_ ��—�.�S�ii�=_=_���_��_= i�wiii=iiiiiii
w , lii I�t—�� . _it♦�—�wiii_�iiiiiii Ci ii===iiiiiiiiiiii-- 11
• 1 • 1 • 1 1 •- ii ri=Il•�i.. ���iiiii� iiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii
'� 1 1 il.r'.!—'fit_----- -------- e-------- --i---------
Cir.��.�fSl\t•11'i'i���iiwiiiii=�iiir�iiii�
1 iii S•L•1..1I111111l1�r,�it• ��iiiiiiiiiii\!J■�l91..�71�./9!'�wiii iiiii iiiiii
lilt• i4a.�ta.11i��iwiiiiiiiiii� —i''.1► ■����' 'l.r-1..'�iii iiiiiiiiiiii
_� • iii ri:�3.�1��iiiiiiii iiii.il�•�.�Iiiii iiiiiiiiiii _
1•1 iiiiiiiii=iii ��.liiiiwii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii�iiiwiiiiiii� 1•1
iiiiiiiiii�C Sr/C<•.iiiwiiiCiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii
iiiiiiiiCiiii.•",?:�::��r:::�t•�t•.iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii_iii_iiiiiiiwi_iiiiiiiiii
=CCC=====_____��=—=iiiiiiii =�=��_-------_
wiiwiiiii�t•�MwMr��.iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii -
iiiiiiiiiii/=�i.. � iiiiiiiiiiwii
iii iii iii!•.Lam■1A1 pf.l.._7 ��i OEM iiiiii wiiiiiiiiiiwiiw—iiiiiii
1:1 iii=iiiii—^`^�.iY.� i� wwwiwiiiiiiiiiwii 1:1
_I=MME PIPE
_i_iiiiiiiiii—iiiiiiii12-12-2018
iiiiiiii i--iMwii�=ii Ci iiiiiii
iii=iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiii
CONDITION
ASSESSMENT
iiiiiiiiiiiiiirl•ii�iiiii.>•iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii
PLANS
11 • 11 I 11 11 11 11 11 11 . 11 11 11 • 11 1 11

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------------------- --- --------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- -------- - ------------------------------------ -
, "
'' • / I r I / /\ n1l
PLANS PREPARED BY:- Kimley*Horn
L00, RALEIp1.NC 2i60i
0N �-117-001Q-¢NSE•F-Diaz
1I I
1 ;, n
+ 1 II
X - ' If
I 1 \ II SEAL
IQ-• ' I \ 1 I 1',' I ,
18+06
Z �p IIII III+ \ N
BOX
020+ EllOv 2120 129490 .
00UEm.21.2921t
Cl:)
II
/
'
gu PIPE DEFECT TABLE
C 1 II I # PIPE STA. TYPE OF DEFECT RATING REPAIR? SEAL
1 ' . SIZE 0
- 1 6 60" 18+55 OPERATION & MAINT. 4 YES
1 ' © 60" 18+63 STRUCTURAL 2 NO
60" 18+73 STRUCTURAL 3 YES
60" 18+73 OPERATION & MAINT. 4 YES =zw
60" 118+871 STRUCTURAL 2 NO o a =u
60" 19+03 STRUCTURAL 1 NO w a a
60" 119+601 STRUCTURAL 1 NO a m?
I II © 60" 119+671 OPERATION & MAINT. 4 YES y w x z z
n I I III I / ® 60" kO+241 STRUCTURAL 2 NO w F a a=
N ha I I I + i - " RECORDONTOURS&SURVEY DRAW DRAWINGS DONE BY AVOWN ARE CON ENGINEERING NG9 a
ti DEFECT NUMBERS REFERENCE THE OVERALL
I I'X I I ? ( DEFECT TABLE IN APPENDIX B z a°
wo0z~
zwy�,
°o=sm
Uw�K7
OU
F L w=0
2170 �'_
2170 3.'I.w3
i wsykm
SHAPE LEGEND N w;�i;
2160 - NG-R N R F - O STRUCTURAL DEFECT
2160 w�=��
OPERATION & MAINT.DEFECT
Q UNOZF-
C
mQwVo
2150 — — _ DEFECT COLOR LEGEND
_ 2150
GOOD CONDITION - LEAST SEVERE DEFECTS (1)
FAIR CONDITION - MINOR DEFECTS (2)
2140 2140 W
_ V71)YTx2; POOR CONDITION - MODERATE DEFECTS (3) v,
6�11 62 IoS' 66'69
POOR CONDITION - SEVERE DEFECTS (4) 0 )!L
x �WY
2130 — - POOR CONDITION - MOST SEVERE DEFECTS (5) 2130 Sa a
_ NOTE:ALL STRUCTURAL DEFECTS (RATED 1-5)AND o m
SIGNIFICANT 0&M DEFECTS (RATED 3-5)ARE W _
2120 - INCLUDED IN THE PIPE PROFILE TO THE LEFT. 2120 W x u W
S 0&M DEFECTS RATED 1-2 WERE OMITTED FROM
THE PROFILE DUE TO BEING IN GOOD TO FAIR a o c x
�L- CONDITION.DEFECTS RECOMMENDED FOR REPAIR 5 g W,
- ECG AT THIS TIME ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE PIPE a
2110 DEFECT TABLE e a
2110
2100 2100 DATE'12-12-2018
PIPE
CONDITION
ASSESSMENT
PLANS
A
18+00 19+00 21 0 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 00 27+00 28+00 +00 S-4

!y *`> tea. n _i'ke `t�l� i r�x�i� ": y :.� !•r,6�� � , _ �€ � ." ,\``� �.• j'T
•fir reh, •3,.x" FVNk
i } .•d# L a ,
5K'' .ej� rl
t
=.w.
5'ri7 LWJmum ©�
t' .:� � .,, x ,a2'• .' ,., r 'e♦S� �€R yry � � a!s _�w !' 4�,:• ,�,c k LC' R: e° .,tl.;`� , - �..,,s; ,w� � .. {����® ©�
STRUCTURAL
-•j 7 - y • 3' r W �i><.,.:�c r av�•.� t_s. i�a9 ��:Ps 3. =-iy Jr g „°."€ - S• � \'r'J
r��-' `• '�'� ° '.��.. n " �r� y;b'y..,. a" 7 s [• A ter. , d y - ,� ����j��� ©�
S\ v-.. h., .: ,�' -� a•.1 L' y..', +`�' •!q .* -4 r r (� j o Pl s• - r e 'r` , LZJ��OPERATION �®
♦ '�x.,F•• •'sA _ `°}i>�y. s} [ y - ° I 1 1mm
1
s
ul
'tl
s+����. �. a,. c. sy �. �'•• R '3n1g �;�iE'¢7 ).';R.� =fr� ., , u� .'� A �S rr
Coo
tl " .F °�=� , ,'Y..;.•. . '�.�F ,:F� s � ..¢,t 4J '� � r _'F� %''a - ,�� J '� ., Gl' �® ©�
,,�{{ � � •gay a�• t,, u� � R ' ens` . $'a ^� • ' G� ®® ©�
`4, `� ,�# .� � '��'r r :sg ti `.� ,P - e o o 0 0 ^� Ic• �'' �� ©�
"
� Y c - Yy,� '`�'� - `6, YI' }` 4 .1a r=• `i •6 = .. P $ fin, �, s t '.°f',p 1 1
-------------------------------------------------------
Zoom
---------------------------------------- —-------------
- SHAPE LEGEND ----------------------------�.��----_---------
C� DEFECT
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC—CRC��CCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCC
— STRUCTURAL ------------------,�—'CCCCCCCCCC—CC��C_C__�C_C_C_
_---------------- ------------�CCCCCCCCCCCCC
. 1 C� OPERATION 1 C----------------r�---C--------
01002001
------------CCCCCC.�I••CCeC
I_C—""CC—CCCCCC�=CCCC CCCCC�CCCC--��--C-�CCCCCC C—C---
C-
111�1 -- _ 01022001
GOOD CONDITION - LEAST SEVERE DEFECTS -- �1=J—I•----- --I_—_.CCU =----------I•— I
3 FAIR CONDITION - MINOR DEFECTS (2
-- CCCCCCCCCCC-7�p^�,a�p�'gq _�`�C-:� IC_10:_C,C:CC�C_C_C_C-�'jC_C_C_C_C_C_C_C_C__CCC_
I =�POOR CONDITIONMODERATE 1 CCCCCCCCCC� C,��`?==C CC_-:C_�_�_. =WGCC�CCMm ow—M CCCCCCCCC I -
Coo— ---------•---_ C
=m POORCONDITION1 CCCCCC�CCCCC�C=CICCCC—_C_�CIC C��mCCICCCC—__CC—__C_CC_C_C_C_Cme 00,"Xi'm _ '
POOR CONDITION - MOST SEVERE DEFECTS (5)
'm Coo
---- -------- C._ —ice 0 ------------
MIMIM
— 1• 1 ---1 s�� 11— —�o•-- --------------C ----------
---------------'� ------10
- ----------------�--�----------
---- _��----��---------loom .�--------- 1:1
12-12-2018
PIPE
---------------------------- ---------�_-----���--------- CONDITION
---------------------------��._�---------.��----- ASSESSMENT
CC---------
11 1/ I 11 II II 11 11 /1 11 II 11 11 1 11

ti r T t J Le u nF r dL . ySt �" p.a t
u [,% iti
•:� v' � V � ',� 1 Y� e�. �'�+J+'� g'c�.] '��19 + � � II �.�. � r L!�' i�''�s "t '•,.
`7,
��� f°°�sr.. �:�'� 1� S` sr e ,,� ss^15, •fig �.�� 4 �'fs {Itrf f��a: .,Yy�i c' ��,
°°�� 4 i.' � a �� a .r' w # * 3 �. a T• ,� �SFi 'L �± # 'C il'I
A
a ft i r r s
s
av�yAk
.: :r � Y Y 1• _i �L 7,�. ,, -
r; ': ° `,'i r' '•e. Ly` ;• �V..,4`tk•.a}C
{y i .M1 r _ - r,a } mac 3 i © ��® • 1 ®®
�`
04
QI M= •• • �®
t 'ate' _ 'L r• • ,, a i
•,yam
f�` ,, '.`3'i .. , e r„�,pe` #r •+` .�.r OPERATION
..„ try � s� r aa i {• F ' �, a f
l: �, � °°y sY r, a l.�f;', ®MEM
`�, •� ,< '�,� K t °r a 9 � ' sat �I .'�^ ° �"' °s o 0 o e -0 11•
,^ � "A. , ° � .o�. -•dl?3 T ,cf��.+h l � .� O-e a 18 0 1 •
®_�_��_CC CCCC_�CCCC CCCC�GGGGGGIGC_CCC_C_C__�_CCCC_�C_�_CCC__C__
________�CCCCCCCCCC�CCCCCCC�CCCCCC�— CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC�
CCCCCCC�CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC�CCCCCCOCCC�� SHAPE LEGEND �GGGGGGIGGCGGGC
____ ______— • CCCC .1
•1 CCCCCCC�mC____.�'�:��'i.1�i�►Ci :11 �:•: 'r __________"'�'iC______� C __
____________ �_____o III
—______�__�._____ OPERATION DEFECT
_CC_—_ 01001111_— CCC—CO CCCC �____�C� C—C
1 CCC CCGG�C_____ DEFECT COLOR LEGEND
_____________ •-• ______ 111CONDITION1
_______�_____ �_____,.....��y�� ____
____
- CONDITION - MINOR 1 IN
___��__C____����.■.._____C
_m..__________ POOR • 1 1 1
_______G��..__________ ti-
t GC____ ___ ■ .�_ i_� ___ _��..__________ POOR • 1 1 •ST SEVERE 1 (21
_____•its____ _■ i .�_ .___ ________r1_�..__________
�_ C_t �� �_ _____. •1♦r__ ..__
ME __ 6iI�lI•�_� ��__�— �� ____ _C—____ •: 1 •1 —CC
____ �E
MONSOONS m
�ME CCCCCC—CCCC
1 1 ACC
____OBSESSES
_ __� __ .��•''� _______�•�________________...�__C___ _
___� �CCCC��CCCCCCCCCCCCCC G C
CG�GGGCGGGCGGGC�GCCC_ CCCGGGC GGGCGGCGGGCGCGGGG:GC ___�___CC� r
18
NONSENSE
_OBSESSES PIPE
_
1 1
m ASSESSMENT
MW
11 • 11 1 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11

-------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------_------
KC L-EV0102
IX
Oq
ROI
INV. 4+00
SEAL
16+0
til SEAL
'ASSUMED STONE fILL OF
?NTRO�/ OLD STREAM BASED
NOTE:SURVEY&CONTOURS SHOWN ARE FROM 2009 1.1
0 RECORD DRAWINGS DONE BY AVCON ENGINEERING
fi
2150
2130
2120
2110
Al
PLMS PREPARED BY.
-GROL NDWATER- -PRESS RE
2090
.12
CONDITION
ASSESSMENT
PLANS

511tteville 60-Inch Pipe Condition Assessment
REGIONAL AI RPO RT
Take the easy way out. 2018 Report
-APPENDIX B-
COMPLETE DEFECT TABLES WITH
RESCORINGS
28
Kimley>>>Horn HTDR®STRUCTURES&

BIO- B10-
WK 1310 NOMICS HYDROSTRU NOMICS(O HYDROSTR
USMH. DSMH Defect# FOOTAGE DICKSON/ NOMICS STRUCTURA CTURES &M) UCTURES COMMENTS RECOMMENDATION
AVCON OBSERVATI L GRADE STRUCTURAL GRADE O&M
STATION ON (NASSCO GRADE (NASSCO Grade
PACP) PACP);
VAULT-2 OUTFALL-1 1 0 DSF 2 2
60-Inch RCP Not a Fracture,Only a small piece is chipped off the
edge at the joint and not considered a structural
2 51.4 1116.4 FL 3' defect Monitor for future
3 51.4 1116.4 IS 1 1 Monitor for worsening infiltration
4 56.3 1121.3 IS 1 1 This defect is actually a defect in the storm
structure and not the pipe
Monitor for worsening infiltration
VAULT-1 VAULT-2 5 53.4 1174.7 CL _ 1 Minor surface crack,may be a scratch Monitor for worsening infiltration
60-Inch RCP 6 62.5 1183.8 IS 1 1 Monitor for worsening infiltration
7 110.8 1232.1 IS 1 1 Monitor for worsening infiltration
8 119.6 1240.9 IS 1 1 Monitor for worsening infiltration
9 135.2 1256.5 Is 1 1 Monitor for worsening infiltration
10 183.7 1305 CC 1 1 May not be a crack Monitor for worsening infiltration
11 215.1 1336.4 CM = _ Monitor for future
12 215.1 1336.4 IW 2 2 Monitor for worsening infiltration
13 222.4 1343.7 CM Monitor for future
14 224.2 1345.5 CM _ _ 2 Monitor for future
15 224.2 1345.5 IW 2 2 Monitor for worsening infiltration
16 232.8 1354.1 IS 1 1 Monitor for worsening infiltration
17 241 1362.3 IW 2 2 Monitor for worsening infiltration
18 241 1362.3 IS Monitor for worsening infiltration
19 248.4 1369.7 IS 1 1 Monitor for worsening infiltration
20 256.4 1377.7 IS 1 1 Monitor for worsening infiltration
21 272.6 1393.9 IS 1 _ Z I Monitor for worsening infiltration
22 304.5 1425.8 IR 4 4 vn ea t p v f7i'_ tr
23 304.5 1425.8 CM I May not be a crack,very minor Monitor for future
24 337.8 1459.1 IS 1 1 Monitor for worsening infiltration
25 345.1 1466.4 CM _ Minor multiple surface cracks Monitor for future
26 353 1474.3 CL 2 Not sure if it is a crack,very minor Monitor for future
27 353 1474.3 IW 2 2 Monitor for worsening infiltration
28 360.9 1482.2 IS 1 1 Monitor for worsening infiltration
29 372.1 1493.4 CM Minor surface cracks Monitor for future
30 377 1498.3 IS 1 1 Monitor for worsening infiltration
31 393.5 1514.8 IS 1 1 Monitor for worsening infiltration
32 402.3 1523.6 IS 1 1 Monitor for worsening infiltration
33 418.3 1539.6 CM - 2 Monitor for future
34 418.3 1539.6 ID _ Monitor for future
35 425.8 1547.1 ID 3 3 7le=;1 z � rat[ n
36 427.5 1548.8 CM Monitor for future

BIO- BIO
WK• 1310- NOMICS HYDROSTRU NOMICS(O HYDROSTR
DICKSON/ NOMICS STRUCTURA CTURES &M) UCTURES USMH DSMH Defect# FOOTAGE COMMENTS RECOMMENDATIONAVCON 'OBSERVATI L GRADE STRUCTURAL GRADE 0&M,
STATION ON. (NASSCO GRADE (NASSCO Grade
PACP) ,,, PACP)
37 433.4 1554.7 CM Monitor for future
38 433.4 1554.7 IS Monitor for worsening infiltration
39 450.7 1572 CC Monitor for future
40 450.7 1572 IW 2 2 Monitor for worsening infiltration
41 457.9 1579.2 IR
42 483 1604.3 IW 2 2 Monitor for worsening infiltration
43 490.5 1611.8 IS 1 1 Monitor for worsening infiltration
44 499.5 1620.8 IS 1 1 Monitor for worsening infiltration
45 507.5 1628.8 IS 1 1 Monitor for worsening infiltration
46 515.1 1636.4 IW 2 2 Monitor for worsening infiltration
47 522.3 1643.6 IS 1 1 Monitor for worsening infiltration
48 531.6 1652.9 CM Monitor for future
49 531.6 1652.9 IR
50 539.2 1660.5 IS 1 1 Monitor for worsening infiltration
51 548.6 1669.9 IS 1 1 Monitor for worsening infiltration
52 555.6 1676.9 IS7 1 1 Monitor for worsening infiltration
53 556.6 1677.9 CS 2 2 Not Sure it's a crack Monitor for future
54 563.1 1684.4 IS 1 1 Monitor for worsening infiltration
55 572.2 1693.5 IS 1 1 Monitor for worsening infiltration
56 580 1701.3 IS 1 1 Monitor for worsening infiltration
57 587.4 1708.7 IS 1 1 Monitor for worsening infiltration
58 596.4 1717.7 IS 1 1 Monitor for worsening infiltration
59 636.6 1757.9 IW 2 2 Monitor for worsening infiltration
60 644.3 1765.6 IS 1 1 Monitor for worsening infiltration
61 733.2 1854.5 IR 4 4
62 741.6 1862.9 CM Monitor for future
63 751.5 1872.8 SRV 5 0 Reinforcement not visible Not a defect
64 751.5 1872.8 IR 4 4 Heavy infiltration spill
65 751.5 1872.8 HVV No visible void,small piece of pipe missing in joint
66 765.5 1886.8 CM Monitor for future
67 765.5 1886.8 IS 1 1 Monitor for worsening infiltration
68 773.6 1894.9 IS 1 1 Monitor for worseninginfiltration
69 781.7 1903 CL Monitor for future
70 829.7 1951 IS 1 1 Monitor for worsening infiltration
71 838.5 1959.8 CC 1 1 Monitor for future
72 845.9 1967.2 IR 4 4
73 902.6 2023.9 ID Monitor for future
74: 902.6 2023.9 CM Monitor for future
75 918.6 2039.9 IW 2 2 Monitor for worsening infiltration
76 926.8 2048.1 IS 1 1 Monitor for worsening infiltration
77 975.4 2096.7 IW 2 2 Monitor for worsening infiltration
78 1023.5 2144.8 IS 1 1 Monitor for worsening infiltration
79 1047.9 2169.2 IS 1 1 Monitor for worsening infiltration
80 1056.5 2177.8 IW 2 2 Monitor for worsening infiltration

Additional tables are provided belowfor the 54"and 18"pipes that were inspected in the eio-
Nomics report however, the reccomendations and the written report mainly focus on the 60"
RCP as perscope of work.
BIO-
B10-
NOMICS 1NK BIO- NOMICS
DICKSON/ NOMICS Clock STRUCTU HYDROSTRUCTU HYDROSTRU
USMH DSMH Defect# FOOTAGE Clock To RAL RES STRUCTURAL {O&M) CTURES COMMENTS
AVCON OBSERVA From GRADE
STATION TION GRADE GRADE (NASSCO O&M Grade
(NASSCO PACP)
PACP
CB-1 VAULT-1 81 11.9 2328.1 CM 2 4 Surface Crack
54"RCP NOT IN SCOPE 82 19.3 2320.7 CL 11 2 Surface crack/scratch
83 45.2 2294.8 CL 12 _ Surface crack, Possibly a spider web or a scratch on the coating
84 56.5 2283.5 CL 4 Surface crack, Possibly isolated to\coating
85 60.6 2279.4 CM 2 5 - Surface Cracking
86 61.6 2278.4 IS 11 5 1 1
87 68.8 2271.2 IS 6 12 1 1
88 89 2251 IS 12 5 1 1
89 89 2251 IW 7 11 2 2
90 92.4 2247.6 IR 1 6 q
91 104.8 2235.2 ID 2 5
92 153.1 2186.9 JOM the cross section of the pipe.
93 153.1 2186.9 1 W 2 6 2 2
94 153.1 2186.9 CL 11
Only a little piece about 1" Deep is broken out of the joint
95 153.1 2186.9 SRV _ revealing a very small amount of Reinforcement
96 164.7 2175.3 ID 12 12 3 3 This defect is from the junction box and not the pipe
VAULT-2 OUTFACE-2 97 218 CM 8 4 3 3
significant pipe surface damage
18"RCP NOT IN SCOPE 98 22.9 IW 2 5 2 2
99 28.6 IR 2 5 -
100 36.9 IS 7 11 1 1
101 53.3 FC 7 11 2 1 2
102 53.3 IS 7 11 11 1
103 65.9 DAE 81 12 1 2 2

Definitions
Structural
CC Crack Circumferential
CL Crack Longitudinal
CM Crack Multiple
CS Crack Spiral
FC Fractural Circumferential
FL Fractural Longitudinal
SRV Surface Reinforcement Visible
HW Hole Void Visible
JOM Joint Offset Medium
0&M
IS Infiltration Stain
IW Infiltration Weeper
ID Infiltration Dripper
IR Infiltration Runner
DAE Deposits Attached Encrustation
DSF Deposits Settled Fine

SheVille 60-Inch Pipe Condition Assessment
R E G I O N A L A I R P O R T
Take the easy way out. 2018 Report
APPENDIX C-
DUKE ENERGY ORIGINAL PIPE
INSPECTION REPORT
29
Kimley>>>Horn H-DROSTRUCTURES"

Divislo'! G,i`hak;r Res,
AUG 1 0 2018
/Asheville
.,,I O N A L AIRPORT n-Perations
Take the easy way out. Office
August 6, 2018
State of North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality
Mr. G. Landon Davidson, P.G., Regional Supervisor
2090 U.S. Highway 70
Swannanoa, NC 28778
RE: Response to July 31 st, 2018 Review Comments and Request for Additional
Information
Dear Mr. Davidson:
I am in receipt of your letter and request for additional information noted above. The
conclusions contained in the 2018 Annual CCTV Inspection Video Assessment
performed by CCP Engineering on behalf of Duke Energy, utilized standards published
by-the National Association of-Sewer Service Companies-(NASSCO) Pipeline
Assessment Certification Prograr-h.(PACP).
The video provided by CCP Engineering has been further reviewed by the airport's
engineering firm, as well as Rinker, the manufacturer of the pipe. It was noted that
there are several different means and standards by which to measure the condition of
this pipe, and that additional analytical data would be required in order to make the
determinations requested in your letter. It was suggested by Rinker that a third-party
contractor or engineer undertake its own investigation, possibly utilizing different means
and standards for comparison. Additionally, the airport reached out to the NCDOT
concerning same, and received the same suggestion.
The request in your letter to provide a response and workplan with schedule by the
close of business on Friday, August 31st, 2018 is not a timeframe that can be
reasonably met. The Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority (Authority) is
undertaking immediate and responsible actions to further investigate the condition of the
pipe and establish a workplan and schedule. In addition to the normal timeframe it will
take to accomplish the work you have outlined, understand that the Authority is a
governmental entity bound by North Carolina purchasing laws and must undertake
those:steps:typical. of any state ago'ncy in,,procuring services, We therefore cannot
reasonably undertake,and,complete this work by the deadl.irle you have requested.
61 Terminal Drive,Suite 1 -Fletcher,NC 28732-828-684-2226-flyavl.com

Mr. G. Landon Davidson, R.G.
August 6t", 2018
Page 2
The following information or responses to your request are provided to the extent we
are able to at this time:
1. Without adequate time for further investigation, we are unable to conclude
whether the 60-inch RCP is appropriate in its current condition. Until this
additional investigation is complete, we will be unable to determine what, if any,
modifications, repairs, or replacement may be needed.
2. The GARAA is working with Duke Energy concerning responsibilities over
maintenance of the area, including annual CCTV inspections of the RCP.
3. A site map, drainage area calculations, and pipe capacity calculations will be
performed and provided with the workplan once complete.
To date, in addition to the actions and reviews noted above, we have scheduled a site
visit with a third-party engineering firm that is pre-qualified to conduct large culvert
inspection and condition assessments by NCDOT. The initial site visit will take place
the week of August 6th, with additional site visits for more detailed inspection to follow.
It should be noted that it would be desirable to utilize an NCDOT approved condition
assessment standard that may be other than the NASSCO PACP standard. If so, this
would be proposed as the baseline standard to be used for all future condition
assessments of the RCP.
Your acknowledgement of the insufficient nature of the August 31st, 2018 deadline for
submittal of the workplan and schedule would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
(:4 Z-0
Lew Bleiweis, A.A.E.
Executive Director
cc: John Toepfer, Duke Energy

a, a
ROY COOPER
Cev�rit�r
1C1-I�AELS.l E +I NORTH CAROLINA
�v9
MI C14 �Ehylrmnmental Quality
SrcUNDA CULPEPPER
drr 'Dtrecior'
August 3,2018
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
Attn:John Toepfer
410 S.Wilmington Street/NC15
Raleigh, NC 27601
Re: Well Construction Permit WM0100443
Asheville Airport Area I Structural Fill
Buncombe County
Dear Mr.Toepfer,
In accordance with your application received August 1,2018,we are forwarding well construction
permit WM0100443 dated August 3, 2018.The permit is for the construction of four monitoring wells
and two piezometers on Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority property as described in the
application and the attached permit.
The permit will be effective from the date of issuance for a period of one year and is subject to the
conditions and limitations as specified therein.A Well Construction Record shall be completed and
signed by the certified drilling contractor for each well.The forms shall be submitted to the Department
upon completion of the wells and shall reference the applicable permit number. Please review the
attached permit conditions.
If you should have any questions or need additional information,contact Andrew Moore at 828-296-
4500.
Sincerely,
G. Landon Davidson, P.G.
Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
cc: ARO file
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
2090 US 70 Highway,Swannanoa,NC 28778
828.296.4500

NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF MONITORING WELL
In accordance with the provisions of Article 7, Chapter 87, North Carolina General Statutes, and other applicable
Laws, Rules and Regulations.
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO
Duke Energy Progress,LLC
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONITORING WELL SYSTEM consisting of four monitoring wells and two
piezometers owned by Duke Energy Progress, LLC,410 S.Wilmington Street/NC15, Raleigh, NC 27601.The
monitoring wells and piezometers will be located on property owned by the Greater Asheville Regional Airport
Authority located in Buncombe County(PIN#964352328400000).This Permit is issued in accordance with the
application received on August 1,2018,in conformity with specifications and supporting data,all of which are filed
with the Department of Environmental Quality and are considered integral parts of this Permit.
This Permit is for well construction only,and does not waive any provision or requirement of any other applicable
law or regulation. Construction of any well under this Permit shall be in strict compliance with the North Carolina
Well Construction Regulations and Standards(15A NCAC 02C.0100),and other State and Local Laws and regulations
pertaining to well construction.
If any requirements or limitations specified in this Permit are unacceptable, you have a right to an adjudicatory
hearing upon written request within 30 days of receipt of this Permit. The request must be in the form of a written
petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes and filed with the Office of
Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714. Unless such a demand is
made,this Permit is final and binding.
This Permit will be effective for one year from the date of its issuance and shall be subject to other specified
conditions,limitations,or exceptions as follows:
1. Issuance of this Permit does not supersede any other agreement, permit, or requirement issued
by another agency.
2. The well(s)shall be located and constructed as shown on the attachments submitted as part of the
Permit application.
3. Each well shall have a Well Contractor Identification Plate in accordance with 15A NCAC 02C
.0108(0)where applicable.
4. The monitoring well shall be maintained in accordance with 15A NCAC 02C.0108.
5. A Well Construction Record (GW-1) for each well shall be submitted to the Division of Water
Resource's Information Processing Unit within 30 days of the well completion in accordance with
15A NCAC 02C.0114.
6. When the well is discontinued or abandoned,it shall be abandoned in accordance with 15A NCAC
02C .0113 and a well abandonment record (GW-30) shall be submitted to the Division of Water
Resource's Information Processing Unit and the property owner within 30 days of the well
abandonment in accordance with 15A NCAC 2C.0114.
Permit issued the 3rd day of August,2018
FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
Landon Davidson, Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Permit No.#WM0100443

Laverty, Brett
From: Michael A. Reisman <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday,August 03, 2018 12:36 PM
To: Davidson, Landon; Laverty, Brett
Cc: Moose, James
Subject: [External]Airport
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified.Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Landon/Brett:
I wanted to ask for some clarification on one item contained in your July 31st letter concerning review comments and
additional information on the 60 inch RCP issue. You note at the end of the letter that the submittal should bear a seal
from an engineer with NASSCO PACP certification. I would like.to ask about the significance and nature of this request
at is relates to this standard. There are several different standards and means to properly inspect and evaluate the
condition of a large culvert. Was this chosen simply because that was the standard used by CCP Engineering in their
assessment report, and you are looking to use that as a baseline for future inspections?or, is there a reason why your
office has established this as the standard you want to use. In speaking with our engineer,the pipe manufacturer, and
even NCDOT,there are suggestions about using other NCDOT accepted or approved methods and standards which may
be more appropriate from the standpoint of establishing a baseline condition for future comparison. The NCDOT itself
has published standards on large culvert pipe evaluations, and pre-qualifies contractors and engineers to perform
these. There is an NCDOT pre-qualified engineering company in Asheville capable of doing this, but using the NASSCO
standard will likely dictate going out of the region to find a firm that can meet that requirement, and will delay our
ability to move further inspection of the pipe forward as quickly as we need to,given the requirements we have to
follow North Carolina Procurement laws for such services.
If you would please provide some information or response to this matter it would be appreciated.
Michael A. Reisman, A.A.E.
Deputy Executive Director,
Development& Operations
Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority
E-mail: mreisman(a)fiyavl.com
Office: 828-654-3253
Mobile: [phone]
hevi84e
.a...l.%I....-.
WARNING: E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law"NCGS.Ch.132"and may be
disclosed to third parties by an authorized state official. All e-mail sent to or from The Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority(AVL)business e-mail
system is subject to archiving, monitoring and/or review by AVL personnel.This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is
addressed. If you are not the named addressee,you are not authorized to read, print, retain copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you
have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately either by phone[phone])or reply to this e-mail and delete all copies of
this message.
1