WQ0000020 Aville Arpt Correspondence 2-'18 - 7-'18

1' Y
i
ROY COOPER
;' Secretary
1uat r tiesaurccs L'INDA CULPEPPER
aEnv�ronmenta!i;�iiality. 1U1y.3.1,201$:-
. liire��n,t�nettot
CERTIFIED MpIL7017 262Q QOOD 9759 4�35;
RETURN.RECEIPT.,"REQUESTED
Lew BI'eiweisf A.A.E;l=xecutive Director
'GreaterAsheville Regional;AirportAuthor'ity-
61 Terminal Drive; Suitel'1,
Fletcher;N C.28732
CERTIFIED MAIL 7017 2620 O0p0 9759 4766,'
RETURN;RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr Paul.Draavtch-SVP,Environtnental,.Health,;&Safety
Duke Energy.'
526South Church Street,EC I
Charlotte, N C..28201-'
RE: R-e.vrew C6MM6nt§sand Re.questrfoir-AddM6'nal.Information
2018;Qnnual:'Cl osed'-Grcuit`Televi5on('CCTV) Inspectiot.Video,Assessment of the:
0.4nch Rernforee;d Concrete Plpe'(R.P) Beneath Area 1 CCP Structural Fiil
Duke.Energy'Progress, Inc,/Grea ter As Neville,RegtonalAlrpor ihority
CCP."Structural.'Fill Protects ;Asheville Airport.
Perrnif.VUQ0000020"
`Buncombe County, NC
Deal-Nlr. Bleiwers,ancl-Mr: Draovitch,;
The North Carolina.Department of Environments Quality(DEQj receritfy campleted:a review of
Duke Ener'gy's°:June 1,2018 Annual;CCN:Inspectrbn.V,dea.Assessrnent the"CCN Report'.'} of the.
60.4hch-diameter reinforced.concrete plpe'(RCP}that exten"ds for approximatelyi1,300 Meg 'feet
feet
,arid bisects the Area twal co mbustiion.product(CCP)..structural.fill;The RCRconveys stormwater
and likely baseflow-from the Asheville Arc-6 Aorminal/hangar area and potentially-:additional`
offsite commercial areas;along Airpi3rt Road, The purpose,of thrs letter is,to provide review;
comments and'request additional'information regarding the,assessment.
The.su<ject.report highlighted multiple instances of ending-.-d,irifiitratiop of varying,`severities in
the K0. Defects cited include a,We at the top,of-pipe(751. feet,:Vault 2 tq Vaulf 1),a(damaged.
joint (�531 feet, Catch Balm to Vault },.arid multrple.infrltratiQn runners The hole locafed at 751,5
feet was=.noted as themain.structural change occurnrig since the 2017 Insp,eetion. Compared to;the
201-7 inspection, infiltration rates slso increased slightly;;"The entire,length-of the RCA was rated.
"fair condition"-with:a•"moderate r sk,of'failure ''The inspectiomreport recommends repaldrig1he:
f ole:at the top of pipe(751.5)5eet,'Vault 2 to,.Uault 1),and the-darnaged Dint with:exposed
reinforcement(1531 feet,.Cattk86sin to Vault'1)to`avoid.furtherstructural deteriorati6ri of the:
pipe'in.these.areas.and co,nfinued CCN:inspections to;inoniiorahe condition ofthepipe.:
Statwd orth Carolina l Vi* nme'-.'.Quality!(waterkesour
20.9U U.S,H't�(iway74:Swannanoa,idortti`Garolina�377:8
,'828�9G-450tf�

T ,
Bleiweis/Draovitch
July 31,2018
Page 2 of 3
The structural integrity of the RCP is critical because the subject RCP: (1) bisects a structural fill
containing 730,000 tons of CCPs;(2) is located 400-feet upslope of the Hidden Creek residential
community; (3) is located upslope of multiple private water supply wells; (4) conveys waters of the
State;and, (5) is a critical stormwater conveyance necessary for airport operations. Failure of the
RCP could adversely impact airport operations and/or the residential community. Further
'compromise of the structural fill by RCP failure may result in violations of North Carolina's water
quality laws and regulations, in addition to the violations already noted in the April 11,2018 Notice
of Violation issued to both Duke Energy and the Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority
(GARAA).
Based on the findings and site conditions, DEQ is requiring GARAA and Duke Energy to provide an
adequate response to the following:
1. If GARAA and Duke Energy collectively conclude the RCP is appropriate in its current
condition and use, provide a narrative stating that the reported condition(i.e.,fair condition
and moderate failure risk)of the RCP is acceptable for its application(i.e.,bisecting a CCP
fill,conveying the calculated drainage area for stormwater, serving as an underdrain for
baseflow,etc.)and setting(i.e.,supporting Airport operations,upslope from a residential
neighborhood, discharging to waters of the State,etc.);or,
2. If GARAA and Duke Energy collectively conclude the RCP is appropriate for its application
and setting but requires modification (e.g.,repair), provide a narrative and schedule
outlining the proposed modifications;or,
3. If GARAA and Duke Energy collectively conclude the RCP is not appropriate for its
application and setting, provide a narrative and schedule for RCP replacement or removal.
Based on the findings and site conditions, DEQ is requiring GARAA and Duke Energy to complete the
following action items:
1. Identify a responsible party and submit a schedule to continue the annual CCTV inspections
and associated NASSCO PACP scoring system.
2. Submit a site map showing a schematic of the entire stormwater piping system for the 60-
inch RCP including any off-site stormwater contributions. -
3. Calculate the drainage area for the entire 60-inch RCP including any offsite contributions.
4. Determine if the current 60-inch RCP and associated 15-inch RCP has the capacity to
withstand a 25-year,24-hour storm event based on the calculated drainage area.
In addition, GARAA is covered under NPDES Industrial Stormwater Permit NCG150000(Certificate of
Coverage NCG150045),which requires the development and implementation of a Preventative
Maintenance and Good Housekeeping program that includes,among other items,a schedule of
maintenance for stormwater control systems and facility systems that present a potential for
stormwater pollution (II-F).The NCG150000 permit also requires that the permittee properly
operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related
appurtenances)that are installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with the
conditions of this permit(V-C(1)).

6leiweis/Draovitch
July 311 2- 18
Page 3 of 3;
The GARAA:and Duke-Ehergy'shall provide `n,adequate response arid�workplan wifih scheduleto
,address the items listed above by the close,.of,bias r>iess(cool on'FridayAugust- 1,2o18:'I'tie
requirements yet fiorth herein are in addition tarthe regi%lrements set forth:in DE.Q's June 2 ,2018;
letter to both Duke�.Eriergy`and GARAA regard'rng;the.lune 8;2018 corrective action.uvork plan:
Please ncte;that any submittal required herein shali.bear:the seal of,an'appr,.opr�a`teiy licensed,North
Carolina Professional,Engineer with a NA55C0 PACP certi'f ication.
:Sf ould:you have-any, questions regarding these matters,.,please;°feel free to.contad Landon
Davidsomor Brett Laverty-at(82$):29.�=4506,Questions:regarding the NP,DES:Industrial.�StQrrriwater
Perrnit.may be:;directed;to.Annette Lucas at(919),SOT6381.
.Sincerely;
D.—WSligned;by:
7Eti'i7A3�2ii5948G:..
G. Landon Davidson,PG.,Regional Supervisor
Water Quality4tegional Operations
Di rision of Water'Resources
Asheviill``Regional Office t
Tciby Vinson, P.E {Ul Interim Direc r
IaVision;Qf Energy,,fViineral and, Land' 'esources
`cc:• IWQMhOV'Al.Reglfdnai Office files
Matthew 8urrii.-GAM A'BoatI Nlem e"r
:ecs` Mietiael ReiSmarr:- Asheuiile Regional Airport Authority
John Toepfer—;Ruke'Energy
An6ettelucas.'NCDEMLR
Scan Aiken IVCDEMLR!

Laverty, Brett
From: Toepfer, John R <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2018 2:11 PM
To: Laverty, Brett
Cc: Nordgren, Scott R.; Pickett, Matt; Hill, Tim S.; Czop, Ryan; Pruett, Jeremy J.; McNash, James
geosyntec; Michael A. Reisman ([e-mail])
Subject: [External] FW: Conceptual Design of Area 1 Cap
Attachments: Asheville Airport Area 1 Corrective Action Workplan Response June 25 201....pdf
CAUTION: D• not click links or open attachmentsverified.
Brett—as you see below, Duke Energy continues the dialogue with the Asheville Airport regarding a 'permanent'
solution to Area I. This is in the conceptual stage and any 'permanent'solution is not expected to be completed until the
end of 2019.
We received your response dated June 25, 2018 and have begun working on a response to that. We could use more
clarification from you on Corrective Action 9. It states, "You are required to conduct a quantitative assessment of the
meteorological and groundwater conditions that would lead to a veneer failure of the cover thereby exposing CCR to
heavy rainfall and subsequent rapid erosion.' Please elaborate as to what you may be looking for on this item.
Duke Energy continues to move forward on the temporary stabilization plan submitted to you under cover dated June 8,
2018. However,your June 25 response did not address this issue. Is DEQ open to foregoing temporary stabilization of
Area I with the 'permanent' solution based on timing noted above (in place end of 2019)? Please let us know. 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
From: Hill,Tim S.
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 12:24 PM
To: Michael A. Reisman ([e-mail])
Cc: Pickett, Matt; Toepfer, John R; Nordgren, Scott R.
Subject: Conceptual Design of Area 1 Cap
Mike:
As you are aware, DEQ is interested in our timing regarding a permanent cap solution to the east side of Area 1. We
discussed a parking lot as an option. We would like to move forward with an initial design on this, and want to make
sure we incorporate any of your concerns.To this end,can you provide the contact information for who can provide
this?
Also, since DEQ did not specifically comment on the temporary stabilization plan we submitted in their June 25th letter,
we are going to confirm that they still wish us to pursue this work assuming that a permanent solution wouldn't be
1

forthcoming until next year at the earliest assuming we can work through the details. I am planning on coming out next
Thursday the 12th and walkdown this plan with the Airport to make sure we address your concerns.
Tim
Tim Hill
Regional General Manager
CCP Operations and Maintenance/ Plant Demolition
Western Carolina/ Florida
919-812-0879 (cell)
980-373-6166 (office)
2

Laverty, Brett
From: Michael A. Reisman <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 10:32 AM
To: Laverty, Brett
Cc: Davidson, Landon; John Coon
Subject: [External] RE: Asheville Airport Area 1
CAUTION: D. not click Ii nks or 0 pen attachments unless verified.Send all suspiciousemail
Brett:
We used a lightweight Ventrac mower on the slope last week. We kept the deck adjusted above 3 inches,which is what
Duke indicated the max height of the pins were. It is the smallest piece.of equipment we have that can realistically
work that area and slope. Some of the ruts that were uncovered we believe were probably from when Duke mowed it
last themselves, since we were not willing to put our equipment on it given how saturated it was at the time. Not saying
that our machine could not have possibly left a rut or two also, but we will be going in a repairing those shortly. We also
r did a good amount of work along the slope and ditches with weedeaters, including around the monitoring
locations. The ditches and riprap areas have been sprayed with Roundup and should be dying off pretty quickly.
The west slope was not what we understood was the priority,at least for last week, but our crew is out working on that
slope today. That is steep enough that most of it requires weedeating.
We will continue to monitor and regularly mow and maintain those areas as we have the past couple of years, provided
it remains stable and we can get our equipment onto it. The main issue this year as you know has been our reluctance
to put equipment on the slope given how soft it was, and how many pins were placed out there. Hopefully it will remain
more stable the remainder.of the season as it has been more recently.
Mike Reisman
From: Laverty, Brett<[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday,July 10, 2018 4:23 PM
To: Michael A. Reisman<[e-mail]>
Cc: Davidson, Landon<[e-mail]>
Subject:Asheville Airport Area 1
Mike,
I was at Area Ion Tuesday and have a few questions.
• 1 noticed the east slope was recently mowed. I observed ruts in some of the saturated portions of the slope.
What techniques did you employ and what equipment was used? My main concern is the integrity of the slope
pins.
• 1 noticed the west slope has not been mowed. What are you plans for maintaining the vegetation on the west
slope?
• What are your plans for maintaining the vegetation on both slopes for the remainder of the growing season?
Thank you in advance for your response.

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(d,)ncdenr.gov
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778
othing Cornpares_�,_
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
2

DUKE 410 S.Wilmington Street
Raleigh,NO 27601
ENERGY® Mailing Address
Mail Code NO 15
Raleigh,NO 27601
919-546-7863
919-546-6302(lax)
July31, 2018
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Attn:Mr.Landon Davidson
2090 U.S.70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778
RE: Application for Permit to Construct Monitoring Wells and Piezometers at the Asheville Airport Area
I Structural Fill, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Dear Mr.Davidson:
Duke Energy Progress, LLC. (DEP) plans to install two piezometers and four groundwater monitoring
wells at the Asheville Airport within the Area I structural fill near locations shown on the enclosed figure.
As DEP is not the property owner, Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ)form GW-22MR has been
completed and signed by an Airport official. As field work is anticipated to begin the week of August 6,
2018,we respectfully request an expedited approval of this application.
If you have any questions or need any clarification regarding the information provided, feel free to
contact me at [e-mail] or at 919-546-7863 at your convenience.
RNnToep4fe., 0.
to
Lead Engineer, Duke Energy EHS CCP
Waste& Groundwater Programs
enc: Form GW-22MR
Figure 1—Proposed STPs, Piezometers and Monitoring Wells,Geosyntec Consultants of North
Carolina, P.C.,July 2018
cc/enc(via e-mail): Mr. Ed Sullivan- Duke Energy
Ms.Teresa Williams—Duke Energy
Mr.Scott Nordgren—Duke Energy
Mr. Matt Pickett—Duke Energy
Michael A. Reisman—Asheville Regional Airport
Mr.James McNash, P.E.—Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, P.C.

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMI OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY-DIVISI :1117 WATER RESOURCES
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT 1 .:ONSTRUCT A MONITORING OR ..WERY WELL SYSTEM
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY
In accordance with the provisions of Article 7,Chapter 87,General Statutes of North Carolina and regulations pursuant thereto,
application is hereby made for a permit to construct monitoring or recovery wells.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
1. Date: July 31 2018
2. County, Buncombe PERMIT NO. ._ ISSUED DATE _
3. What type of well are you applying for?(monitoring or recovery): Monitoring Wells and Piezometers
4. Applicant: Duke Energy Progress.LLC.(DEP) Telephone: [phone]
Applicant's Mailing Address: 410 S.Wilmington Street/NC15,Raleigh,NC 27601
Applicant's Email Address(if available): iohn toeafer®duke-energy com
5. Contact Person(if different than Applicant): John Toepfer Telephone: [phone]
Contact Person's Mailing Address: same as above
Contact Person's Email Address(if available): same as above
6. Property Owner(if different than.Applicant):Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority Telephone: [phone]
Property Owner's Mailing Address: 61 Terminal Drive Suite 1 Fletcher,NC 28732
Property Owner's Email Address(if available): [e-mail]
7. Property Physical Address(Including PIN Number) 61 Terminal Drive,Suite 1. Fletcher,NC 28732
City Fletcher County Buncombe Zip Code 28732
8. Reason for Well(s): Assessment '
(ex: non-discharge permit requirements,suspected contamination,assessment,groundwater contamination,remediation,etc.)
9. Type of facility or site for which the well(s)is(are)needed: Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority
(ex: non-discharge facility,waste disposal site,landfill,UST,etc.)
10. Are there any current water quality permits or incidents associated with this facility or site? If so,list permit and/or incident no(s).
WQOO00020
11. Type of contaminants being monitored or recovered: N/A
(ex: organics,nutrients,heavy metals,etc.)
12. Are there any existing wells associated with the proposed well(s)? If yes, how many? No wells but there are giezometers
Existing Monitoring or Recovery Well Construction Permit No(s).: WM0100425
13. Distance from proposed well(s)to nearest known waste or pollution source(in feet): N/A
14. Are there any water supply wells located less than 500 feet from the proposed well(s)? No
If yes,give distance(s): N/A
15. Well Contractor: Geologic Exploration Certification No.: NC#4121
Well Contractor Address: 176 Commerce Blvd.,Statesville,NC 28625
PROPOSED WELL CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION
1. As required by 15A N.CAC 02C.0105(f)(7),:attach a well construction diagram of each well showing the following:
a. Borehole and well diameter e. Type of casing material and thickness
b. Estimated well depth f. Grout horizons
C. Screen intervals g. Well head completion details
d. Sand/gravel pack intervals
Continued on Reverse

PROPOSE[ . °LL CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION ,___ mtinued)
2. Number of wells to be constructed in unconsolidated 5. How will the well(s)be secured?
material: 2 oiezometers and 4 monitoring wells Locking car)
3. Number of wells to be constructed in bedrock: 0 6. Estimated beginning construction date: Aug.2018
4. Total Number of wells to be constructed: 6 7. Estimated construction completion date: Aug.2018
(add answers from 2 and 3)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
1. As required by 15A NCAC 02C.0105(f)(5),attach a scaled map of the site showing the locations of the following:
a. All property boundaries,at least one of which is referenced to a minimum of two landmarks such as identified roads,,
intersections,streams,or lakes within 500 feet of the proposed well or well system.
b. All existing wells, identified by type of use,within 500 feet of the proposed well or well system.
C. The proposed well or well system.
d. Any test borings within 500 feet of proposed well or well system.
e. All sources of known or potential groundwater contamination(such as septic tank systems,pesticide,chemical or fuel
storage areas, animal feedlots as defined in G.S. 143-215.10B(5),landfills,or other waste disposal areas)within 500 feet
of the proposed well or well system.
SIGNATURES
The Applicant hereby agrees that the proposed well(s)will be constructed in accordance with approved specifications and conditions of
this Well Constrjction P "m' as regulated underthe Well Construction Standards(Title 15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code,
Subchapter 2 )and accepts full responsibility for compliance with these rules
IA�eZ3 Lead Engineer
Slgna r of Applicant or*Agent Title of Applicant or*Agent
John Toeofer 'tf signing as Agent,attach authorization agreement stating
Printed name of Applicant or`Agent that you have the authority to act as the Agent.
If the property is owned by someone other than the applicant,the property owner hereby consents to allow the applicant to construct
wells as outlined in this Well Construction Permit application and that it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the.
well(s)conform to the Well Construction Standards(Title 15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code,Subchapter 2C).
-tic. /Cnf/-PJ Michael A. Reisman, Deputy Executive Director
Signature of Property Owner(if different than Applicant) Printed name of Property Owner(if different than Applicant)
DIRECTIONS
Please send the completed application to the appropriate Division of Water Resources'Regional Office:
Asheville Regional Office Raleigh Regional Office Wilmington Regional Office
2090 U.S.Highway 70 3800 Barrett Drive 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Swannanoa, NC 28778 Raleigh;NC 27609 Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone] Phone: [phone] Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Fayetteville Regional Office Washington Regional Office Winston-Salem Regional Office
225 Green Street,Suite 714 943 Washington Square Mall. 450 W.Hanes Mill Road
Fayetteville,NC 28301-5094 Washington,NC 27889 Suite 300
Phone: [phone] Phone: [phone] Winston-Salem,NC 27105
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone] Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Mooresville Regional Office = 'win ro sole' act
610 East Center Avenue
Mooresville, NC 28115 ' of
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]@
4
4vit ngton
>, GW-22MA Rev.3-1-2018

Yd -
;* .` N
-------------
rt
,�,�. .: " � ••. ,, art: ,i E .K �
Ilk S
,
x.
k
D s
`
• t!
r.
` F
■
D
`.,_/ S �" z -• a Cb'`d `;� �` aI _ tom" v .,
s ur.
is
a,
e
..r.e.'
a2 h v,
al
�.� tea "�' �, �`" �` • ���� t '� a~ f
F
t `
Legend
O_ Proposed SPT # °'
• F D i g 4` � .*r' t �m
s
Existing Piezometer °
Proposed Piezometer
Existing Monitoring Well
Proposed Monitoring Well
Temporary Stabilization Measure
� .
0 Parcel Boundary 1
L__? Compliance Boundary ' g _a,
T-
0 Review Boundary ' " �� 200 100 0 200 400 Feet
� • �
Area 1 Stormwater Network EMNEEW
Notes: PROPOSED SPTS, PIEZOMETERS,
I.Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe,GeoEye, AND MONITORING WELLS
Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS,USDA,USGS, r
AeroGRID,IGN,and the GIS User Community.
2. Field investigation locations were surveyed by McKim&Creed Asheville Regional Airport
on 29 November 2017. g
�.--= :• �� Asheville, North Carolina
3.Parcel boundaries obtained from Buncombe County GIS website
on 20 December 2017.
4.The locations of monitoring wells are approximate and will be °` s ``�
Geosyn eC� (�DUKE Figure
z t, f = t �
adjusted in concurrence with NCDEQ DWR. R# _ ENERGY
consultants
5.Compliance and Review Boundaries obtained from shapefiles -
provided by SynTerra on 16 July 2018. ;.
CHARLOTTE,NC JULY 2018

Mr.Brett Laverty Letter
July 31,2018
Response: Duke Energy's consultant, Geosyntec, will conduct a quantitative assessment of the
meteorological conditions that may lead to a veneer failure, if any, based 'on available information.,
Phreatic-conditions that may result-in a_veneer failure of the soil"cap-were evaluated and"discussed
within the_90-day°submittal.
Corrective Action 10:.
The ARO.is requiring quarterly surface water monitoring at 8 surface water locations. It was recently
discovered that discharge at the end of the�60-inch RCP is negligible during,periods of storm runoff..,Most
of,the.surface water/baseflow passing ahrough the`60-inch""RCP is captured:by the 15-inch stormwater:
line: There•fore,-surface water,monitoring at SW-1 should be•replaced by SIN-'9,, which represents the
discharge from,the 154neh line. This,change will impact both.'quarterly and;biannual,compliance surface
water-monitoring.
Response: Duke Energy completed surface water sampling at Area 1 earlier this month. As previously
stated, Duke Energy will.complete surface water sampling at,Area 1 during,the, months of April and
November (per permit ,WQ0000020) and January and July io fulfill DE0's expectation of quarterly
surface water sampling.
Duke Energy will continue to sample location SW-9 and not SW-1. ,As•surface water sampling is, not
supposed to take place during rain events,Duke Ene' rgy has historically been,sampling at SW-9.in lieu of
SW-1. Location SW4 is normally stagnant during non,rainy periods while Water is flowing out SW'9'
Whickf is the 18:in"ch RCP discharge.in close.proximity to SW-1.
If you, have any questions,or need any clarification regarding the" information provided; feel free to
contact me at john.toepfer@duke,enereycom or at 919-546-7863 at your convenience.
Respectful) submitted,
rnToepferP.t,-
Lead'Engineer",Duke Energy.EHS CCP
Waste& Groundwater Programs
cc: Matt Pickett—Duke Energy
Scott Nor'dgren—:Duke Energy
Ed Sullivan=Duke Energy
Michael A. Reisman—Asheville Regional Airport
Mr.James McNash,'P.E.—Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, P.C.
Eric: Figure 1 —'Proposed STPs, Piezorneters and Monitoring Wells, Geosyntec Consultants of North
Carolina,P.C.,July 2018
5

°
Mr.;Brett6iv,' Letter „W
'July 31,2018,`
b` Y
41,
:
stability analysts of`the RCP corridor.", in your assessment, you willne`ed to'address the fallowing
E questlons > ,
• How,does the Z018 NASSCOPACP grpdrng system comps re with ast RCP inspection ratings
P
r conducted by Duke Energy? x F0
• How does the recent fart rating,Vvrth moderate risk of farlureafor they 60�n h RCP affect�the short- `
term and long term sta6Wtyand/or factor of ii t
'y vie±ktea 2 CCP structural fi1J7
• Will baseflow infiltration degrade theRCPhaver,time? In other words, will baseflow rnfiltratron
' eventual)_4rade.and widerkemstrng crocks observed along the RCP?xY wj ' w
• G►ien the current conditions, can the,,:60 rnchl inchiRCP withstand a 25 year,14 hour storm
event?
Ti
„ -+ The Asheville Airport Aurhority�recen"Ty divulged tothe AR® thatahe sormwater system that '
drains into the°60 inch RCP'rncludes MOO A- rth=end of the airport terminal and commercial areas
vLL 5 } Y ..
c
along Airport'Road,You will be regwre'tl to determine and report the total drainage areai4far tlae °
#a 60'inch RCP? `
sf, ;
• What plans do you have ao repair the R,CP? 5
Response eSoil boring SPT 6 will be ativanced within the RCP>sod corridor as shown on Figure 1 and will
extend approximately 30yft bgs`(terminated above the geosynthetic clay liner(GCL)) tSoil¢bo'ring SPT 6
f will;notpenetrateFthe GCl to avoid darriage;tottthe RCP6as the exact,�aiignment and coordinates of the
RCP°are nQt available Geosyntec will collect soiispenetration tests (SPTs)and undisturbed samples via
Shelby Tubes during soil;bonng-$PT 6rto}supplernent4data collected in November 2017 Undisturbed
" samples w llFbe testedsfor hydraulic eonductiuity andahear strength parameters Piezometer pairs'PZ=
2/02 2S and PZ 3%PZ 3D'are directly adJacer?tato the; RCP soil corridor and will be utili%ed�to support#
slope stability sensitivity analyses '
n g dThe draia ing the RCR is located below the GCL Thedrainage aggregateYiis
dassifled�as a highpermesbilitymaterial ciirnpared to CCR the,Located�-above� GCL; "AsJsuch, extentling
thetormggbelow'the GCL,mto.'the drainageEaggregate poses a potential risk for preferential paths for,
interstitial water to develop ° Therefore, the proposed boring<depthis,not intended to penetrate the ,
GCL: More so, split spoomsamplots used ortSPT are typically unsuitablerto sample coarse aggregates
s -'
such as gratrel $such,dogging of the drainage`corridor}will not be visually assessed Mowever'piping;
r
m _9 phfeatic conditions,an eismic loads may be evaluated during the Corrective Actions � .;.
Fx
As requested; only rthe`susceptibi6ty»of CCR to seismic Liquefaction,was evaluated in the 90 day
submittal and other materiaisEwere not.evaluated Note;that coarse aggregates, such as.gravef Ore not
prone to liquefaction, However,_pseudo static"slope stability3analys,isxwill be applied to each of the Area
1 cross sections evaluated m the"slope siabilityaanalysis proposed ° r
Duke Energy and the ARA are rneceipt of the DEQ letter dated July�31, 2018 which requires.certain
°`'' activities in the,RCP corridor gwke Energy and the ARA wiIF� repave responses under separate cover to
:address DEC's July 31,a2018 letter
y
r
't
-
Corrective Action 9 4
= ` You are required< to conduct o quantitative; assessment of the meteorologic?! and' ground water
conditions,that would lead to:a uveneer failure of the'cover=thereby exposing,CCR to heavy rainfall'dri`d
sutisequen rapid`erasron '.
t
s.
.:c
4,
a"Y
f
.:x

Mr Brett Laverty Letter
July31,2018'
rnsta�llation;of pressure transducers at,PZ 2, PZ 25, PZ 3, and PZ3D Because the=fate (travel time) of
infiltrating precipitation ywithftTM q d beneath fhes structural fill rs,unknown, then pressure transducers,
should remain in'the fourprezometers longer than;the proposed 4 months N
Response DEQ's request is�acknowledgetl Dataloggers will�be installed m�PZ 2,PZ 2S, PZ 3,an 'PZ 3D;
an"d=will remain in-place�until.suffici int information NO lected to„properly.;assess•;the fate of infiltrating
l4
precipitation within and beneath the structuralfill,
Corredive Action 5
" FourShelb y tubes%will be advanced Ito'Collett undisturbed soil cover,samples to eva/uate}the'in situ
G _ �. 4.. Y
hydraubc°conductivity of the soil cover Please ensure that both, the east and west. sal cops are
evaluated
P
Response Undisturbed samples of the soil c be collected dur pg soihborings;5PT 5ahrough SPT=4:
As4show4.6n Figure 1,these locations.inclutle'the east"and west soils,`caps.p;
Corrective Action-7
The''lnclrnometer profile�plats inthe�Area 1 piezometer and survey data for May'2018 appearto be tilt
ehana lots onl :8e in manor! re ortiq o dboth tilt chap
9. � y � � p g f ge (incremental displacement} and profile n
char► a cumulatrue drs !'cement rn the rnclrnometer
t.. �p .
}
t.
a
rofile"plots
Response �..Comment,acknowledged. ;,Tilt k' " ,. profie ' han a plot
s Will,:be s`ubmiq --during
v ,
subsequentyArea !'monthly surveying events;
r ,
Carr'ectwe Action 8 m
Given that specrfrcarions or conformance tests on the surrounding fill;and drain' aggregate system are,
not available, and=that nd`-drilhng;testing or monitoring welis-are proposed for themRCP corridor,how`will
the-values for phreatrc and piezometric porewater pressures'and material,propertres within qnd below
the=RCP be:determined for thestabi!!ty analysis of the:'RCP corridor?`Please°proulde a plan`to-collect data
„.
and/or,information to support the pending stabil►ty analysis{along the RCP corridor..°
The stability anal sis o the RCP corridor should rdenti and'address the otential�f ailure modes o the
F, Y f ; fy ., - p` f f
RCP=COrrldar t0,include, but not limited to;,pipin within backfill/drainage aggregate, pore water
.,>
pressures above and beneath the GCL,clogging of��the"drainage aggregate %a"d►h Ito increased'pore
uvater pressures beriedth the GGL, andseismic loads.
Seismic tiquefaction SusceptibilityrCriteria included in'the 907day report indicatesahat the onlymdierial
type analyzed was CCR;(CCP} Q)ease darrfy;if this irquefoction assessrr►ent:a/so nppUed to the backfih
materlat around the RCP�both above and°below the GCL.
4 `
Slider" by RocScience,acan mode! earthquake'loads on a slope through use of;a seismic acceleration
cbefcient to evaluate inertial forces that can pro dute sliding failures This type of analysis, or�bne;more
appropriate,should be per on the RCP corridor materials and portions of the Area 1 fiH with CCP,
andXaccouiit for pore waterpressures above ah dbelow the'GCL
Thev2018,,Annual CCTV!•inspectign,Video Assessment`Report'(June,1 2018)rated-the;6Q=inch RCP as fair
with a.rrioderiite risk"of failure: _You are,r"aurred,toe incorporate the RCP inspectrom,report,into your

4 i -
Mr.,Brett Laverty Letter
... f
7u1y,31,.2018
n.
Response , A orie time sampling event of`PZ 2;'PZ 2S, PZ 3; an'_d PZ 3D will be„performed `around
Se tember 2018 end,tle sam 'les°will�be,,anal zed'',for the°same parameter list as the'groun dwater
p p Y
I
morntonrig wells at Areas 1, 3=&4. .Analyt�cal results will be communicated toDEQ and ARA tby Duke,
.{. }. . ,
Energy once available.r.
' The:fieldkprogramwliich includes installation of piezometens�,PZ 2S,and PZ-3D,is tentatively scheduled ao
` start on August,-6; 2018=based;on drilling subcontractor availability and weather',condit ons ,Figure•`1
i
depicts the updated 'Piezometer, monitoring well,'andf,soi( boring Ii'bons Please advise your
_ availabihtyto observe_"_the pieiometer:installation with the_understendingahat delays to the August 6 j
2018`date may delay overall schedule
m ' k , r
k
Duke`Energy will°submit,a permit application'later this week for DEQsreviewand approvahfor installation$
r. ..
of#he�pieometers and.monitocing wells 3We would appreciate ansexpedited review inorderto�meet + ;.
the ched4ule identifiedabove
,
Corrective•Adion 3
i
TO proposed lacatrons for Mdnk&ing wells;,MWZ:'and M.W8 are acceptable,;to the,QRO.,However,
proposed monitoring well MW`6 appears to be locafed beyond the review boundary You will-need 1 to
confirm that all'three monitoring wells:are locbted,on theTappropr ate regulatory""'°boundary and adjust'
u their locatians as,needed..
During the May 14' 2018 technical meeting,,there was a brief drscussFon-concerning ttie need`for an f '
r;_ addidbnnal backgrountl_w rW neetl;for'an"additional>peVNe
back round inonitorin well or Area.
g - Q: f
` m ni orie well 'installations.-;Please coordinate.th ~
The ARO would like.the option of observing the o t g e
.,
,- drilling schedule with theAROVat your earliest convenience: t
Response ';The :proposed location for=°MW-6 was adjusted withinAhe review boundavry` as shown on
Figure 1 An additional"monitoring inrell, NIW-9, will be installed to serve--as ai background monitoring
well to=1supplement existing background well MW-4A Locations may be adjusteds in the'field to',
accomrnodatesafejdrill rig access Duke,,Energy-plans to°sample these"new groundwater monitoring
_ a
1welllls m September 2018 and then add them to th0emi-annual sampling program as specified in,perm t
00000Z0 r
The field program; including monitorin,g well'installation,,is:_tentatively scheduled to start on`August 6,
2018 based on drilling sub contractor availability aridl'weather conditions.- Please:advise your-,availability
to observe the monitoring well"installation with the understanding that delays totthe`August 6, 2018 .
date may delay.overall schedule.
Duke Energy will,sub mit"a permit application.laterthis w ek'for DEQ review and'approval-for'instaIlation
of'the pie ometers"and monitoring wells.-.We would appreciate an expedited review,n'.orderA meet
F .fxr - _
the schedule identifiedaboiie.'.
CarrectiveActian'4:
" !t`was:Fnitb!! ° ro` osed;that' `ressure.transducers'with dafalo y p p p£ ggers:,.woultl be insta!led;within PZ-2, P,Z 3,..
PZ-4, and PZ 5 Based on the'new piezometerconflguratlon,'the AROw is revising'its request'to include
2,. ,,

410 S.Wilmington StreeL
P" DUKE _
O' _,Raleigh,NC 27601
ENE RGY® Mailing Address
Mai!Code NC•15
Raleigh,NC27601
919 546.7863
July 31, 2018
"Mr.Brett Laverty,
NC DEQAsheville_Regional Office
2090 US:70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778-
RE Response to the Department of Environmental Quality Letter. Dated June 25;; 2018, Greater,
Asheville Regional Airport,Area I Structural Fill
Dear Mr..Laverty:
Duke Energy is in receipt of the above-referenced Department of Environmental,Quality (DEQ) Division
of Water Resources (DWR) Asheville Regional Office (ARO) response letter to Corrective Action Work
Plan for the Area 1 Structural Fill (Area 1) at the Greater Asheville Regional Airport ('ARA). Area 1 is
located at the airport in Buncombe County, North Carolina (NC) and is owned and maintained by.the
ARA Authority. Mr. Brett Laverty, '(DEQ) provided a response on'June 25 2018 to Duke Energy's,
Area 1 Corrective Action Work Plan dated June 8, 2018. The response from DEQ: (i)„accepted Work.plan.
components; (ii) revised several work plan objectives; and (ii:i) requested additional clarifications,to the
work plan. Tile purpose of-this letter is to acknowledge DEQ's response and provide the, requested'
information and clarifications.. Below is D.EQ's detailed comments in italics along with Duke Energy's
response in normal-font.
Reauired Interim..Measuies:
Based on'the -timeline presented, DWR would encourage Duke and the Airport to proceed with
conceptual.planning of-a permanent cap for Area 1 as required by•permit-WQ0000020; in tandem with
implementation,of the corrective actions and measures.
Response: Duke Energy and'ARA officials met on July 12;2018 to discuss the ARA's concerns with the
proposed grading plan: Also at this meeting,.DukeiEnergy and ARA officials discussed a permanent cap
design for Area_1. Duke Energy plans to submit to DEQ later this week the updated grading plan within -
the`Erosion&Sedimentation Control application for DEQ review-and approval.
Corrective Action 2:
The•proposed locations for PZ-2S and PZ-3D are acceptable to the ARO.
During the-May 14,2018 technical meeting, the ARO proposed sampling the water quality from a limited
number of piezometers. Based on the new piezometer configuration, the ARO is,revising its request to
include a one-time sampling event at piezometers PZ-2, PZ-2S, PZ-3,and PZ-3D. Water samples should be
analyzed for the full range of coal ash constituents.
The ARO would like the option of observing the piezometer installations. Please coordinate the drilling
schedule with the ARO at your earliest convenience. ,

LOCKING
EXPANSION PLUG CAP
CONCRETE PAD MINIMUM 1 FT
GROUND SLOPE TO 4 IN
SURFACE _ DRAIN (APPROXIMATE)
?�ff�rj
,
'ti'/,NC',f/�/f'°'*/dt/te/t�/�,f;.f,,, f/,��f/�:•:•:•: f/ / /�°//�/[K'. /ff.!���✓,�..�
CEMENT/BENTONITE GROUT
30 TO 40 FT
' (NOTE 3)
BENTONITE SEAL 1 FT
ti
1 INCH DIAMETER 1 FT
RISER SCH 40 PVC (MINIMUM)
GRANULAR
0
BACKFI LL
0
0
SLOTTED 1 INCH DIAMETER
u) SCREEN (0.010 INCH SLOT)
w
5 FT
J
Q
O
a
0
a
i
F-
0
a
W BOTTOM CAP/SUMP OMIN E
J
W DIAMETER:
4 INCH NOT TO SCALE
r
z NOTES: PROPOSED TYPICAL PIEZOMETER
Ld
Y 1. UPON COMPLETION OF SPT BORINGS THE PIEZOMETER WILL CONSTRUCTION DETAIL
o BE CONSTRUCTED IN EACH BOREHOLE AS SHOWN HEREIN. FOR SPT BOREHOLES
2. ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE DUE TO
U FIELD CONDITIONS. GeOSynteC® FIGURE
w
� nstants
3. DEPTH TO THE TOP OF SCREEN WILL DEPEND ON THE � ul
°l LOCATION OF WATER LEVEL. A.
rPROJ NO: NCP2017/3122 OCTOBER 2017
Y

is
+`..e ; 4
D 2_�
D D Y rf
a D D R'� 1 "• �+
'i X
- D D k F 51'.
�., �� • e e y�ri }�� {
3 �C, i
t
D O
t
i
11,Ott
Legend
�q
Q. Proposed SPT D ;r
Existing Piezometer
Proposed Piezometer
ii Existing Monitoring Well
fk p 9 Well Monitoring Proposed Pro
'• -
® Temporary Stabilization Measure �!
0 Parcel Boundary
L=, Compliance Boundary
+Review Boundary � : 200 100 0 200 400 Feet
0 #� �;, � ,—
Area 1 Stormwater Network
Notes: , . PROPOSED SPTS, PIEZOMETERS,
1.Service Layer Credits: Source:Esri,DigitalGlobe,GeoEye, t ' AND MONITORING WELLS
EarthstarGeographics,CNES/Airbus DS,USDA,USGS,
AeroGRID,IGN,and the GIS User Community. i �� Asheville Regional Airport
2. Field investigation locations were surveyed by McKim&Creed �� �°4 Asheville,North Carolina
on 29 November 2017.
3.Parcel boundaries obtained from Buncombe County GIS website t°_t y�
on 20 December 2017. "r M r '� I Geosyntec D 4n�DUKE Figure
4.The locations of monitoring wells are approximate and will be } ,
adjusted in concurrence with NCDEQ DWR. considtants ENERGY®
5.Compliance and Review Boundaries obtained from shapefiles '' _
provided by SynTerra on 16 July 2018. '` - +. r CHARLOTTE,NC JULY 2018 1

Laverty, Brett
From: Toepfer, John R <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 3:29 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] June &July 2018 Surveying Results-Asheville Airport Area I
Attachments: Airport Area 1 Piezometers and Survey Data July 2018.xlsx
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified.Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Brett,
I apologize for missing this item and not getting you the June 2018 survey data until now. Please note the attached also
includes the July data so the attached is current. Below is the information for June and July 2018 along with Geosyntec's
observations.
JUNE 2018
Geosyntec received on June 21, 2018 the coordinate and elevation data collected on June 12, 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 and subsequent survey events data.
Geosyntec's observations are as follows:
• Three slope pins (1-12,J1 and J2)were calculated with potential displacements(i.e., above the reporting
tolerance of 0.2 ft/2.4 in.), in the lateral direction relative to the baseline survey. Prior survey events have
identified potential slope pin movements in J1 and J2 during the April 5, 2018 and May 22, 2018 survey events;
however,the computed lateral slope pin displacements for these two slope pins are between 0.005-ft and 0.03-
ft of the computed displacement based on April 5, 2018 survey data.
• Three slope pins (138, C8, F8)were calculated with potential displacements (i.e.,above the reporting tolerance of
0.2 ft/2.4 in.) in elevation relative to the baseline survey.These computed displacements are within 0.009-ft to
0.011-ft(slope pins B8 and F8).and 0.035-ft(slope pin C8) of the displacements computed from data collected
during the April 5, 2018 survey event.
Based on this information,the slope does not appear to have significantly displaced since the baseline survey events.
1

JULY 2018
Geosyntec received on July 17, 2018 the coordinate and elevation data collected on July 10, 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.
Geosyntec's observations are as follows:
• Three slope pins (B8, H2, 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 (C8, F8, and J1) identified with displacements above the 0.2 ft tolerance on June 12,2018,were
found with displacements below the 0.2 ft survey tolerance on July 10, 2018.
Based on this information,the slope does not appear to have significantly displaced since the baseline survey events.
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: Michael A. Reisman <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 3:00 PM
To: Laverty, Brett
Cc: John Coon; Rita Yanz
Subject: [External]Asheville Airport Pipe and Slope
,CAUTI• D. not click links oropen attachments unless verified.Send all suspicious email as an attachmeritto
Brett—Just trying to keep you up to date on our efforts concerning the 60" pipe and the Area 4 slope.
Rinker has reviewed the video inspection, and indicated that a lot of the cracking they saw in the pipe was typical and
expected. They alluded to water infiltration having to do with a high water table which can cause several of the issues
seen in the pipe. They understand the concerns with the long term stability and maintenance of the pipe, and they are
continuing additional review in order to offer some corrective measures for certain areas. It does not sound like they
share the opinion that this pipe is potentially failing however.
Having said that, and understanding your concerns, I am aware that we will need to provide details and data that may be
available, along with whatever mitigation is recommended for your consideration in order to satisfy those
concerns. Rinker is supposed to provide us with a report upon completion of their additional review of the video
footage, at which time we will hopefully be in a better position to address what comes next.
On the area 4 slope issue...we have had some discussions with Charah concerning what is going on and the general
appearance that the liner system maybe holding water near the toe of the slope. They have indicated that depending
upon what they find upon their inspection, it is possible that the anchor trench may need to be modified, and possibly a
French drain added. They are planning to come out and inspect it this week, although I don't have a day or time yet. In
the interim, airport maintenance crews have started repairing some of the surface issues we have seen as the ground
has become dry enough to put equipment onto.
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]
heville
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

r
Laverty, Brett
From: Zimmerman, Jay
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 8:29 AM
To: Laverty, Brett; Risgaard, Jon; Davidson, Landon; Holman, Sheila; Lane, Bill F; Gregson, Jim
Cc: Bircher, Amy([e-mail]); Benzoni, Francisco; Vinson, Toby; Aiken, Stan E;
Culpepper, Linda
Subject: Re: Asheville Airport Area 1 - RCP draft response letter
Thanks Brett for the update. I think it it good news that the airport is.willing to take the lead to address the pipe.
Jay
From: Laverty, Brett
Sent:Thursday,July 12,2018 5:19:47 PM
To: Risgaard,Jon; Davidson, Landon; Holman,Sheila; Lane, Bill F; Zimmerman,Jay;Gregson,Jim
Cc: Bircher,Amy([e-mail]); Benzoni, Francisco; Vinson,Toby;Aiken,Stan E; Culpepper, Linda
Subject: RE:Asheville Airport Area 1- RCP draft response letter
Good Afternoon Everyone,
I just received a call from Mike Reisman who is the Deputy Director for the Asheville Airport. Mr. Reisman was
responding to my request for a review the Area 1 reinforced concrete pipe (RCP)assessment report completed Duke
Energy earlier this year. He indicated that the Airport is equally concerned with h the current condition of the RCP and will
be henceforth taking the lead on repairing and assessing the condition of the RCP.The Airport recently contacted the
manufacturer of the RCP (Rinker)and they are also concerned with the current condition of the pipe.The manufacturer
will be working with the Airport on a potential fix. I did mention to Mr. Reisman that a letter would be forthcoming to
both Duke Energy and the Airport requesting that they assess the stability of the RCP as a component of the structural
fill. Mr. Reisman indicated the Airport would welcome any input from the Department.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Brett Laverty
Brett Laverty
Hydrogeologist—Asheville Regional Office I
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources I ��
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
-,,' 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.,
1

Laverty, Brett
From: Laverty, Brett
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2018 3:15 PM.
To: 'Toepfer, John R'
Cc: Nordgren, Scott R.; Pickett, Matt; Hill, Tim S.; Czop, Ryan; Pruett, Jeremy J.; McNash, James
-geosyntec; Michael A. Reisman ([e-mail]); Davidson, Landon
([e-mail]); Wooten, Rick
Subject: RE: [External] FW: Conceptual Design of Area 1 Cap
John,
I believe the question is related to what may happen in tropical cyclone scenario such as a 24-hour period of heavy
precipitation. It is our understanding that the Area 1 slope is still vulnerable to a failure of the overlying soil cap (veneer
failure) particularly near the toe where pore water pressures are high. We believe conditions could rapidly degrade if the
slope cap fails and coal ash is exposed in this heavy precipitation scenario.Therefore,we would like you model the
performance of the slope cap over a range of precipitation volumes and intensities-In other words,we are looking for a
modeled stress test to determine under what conditions the slope cap would likely fail.
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(cDncdenr.gov
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778
do -�oth nq Compares..-%.,—
M
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From:Toepfer,John R [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent:Thursday,July 05, 2018 2:11 PM
To: Laverty, Brett<brett.lave [e-mail]>
Cc: Nordgren, Scott R. <Scott.Nordgren @duke-energy.com>; Pickett, Matt<[e-mail]>; Hill,Tim
S. <Tim.Hill @duke-energy.com>; Czop, Ryan<[e-mail]>; Pruett,Jeremy J. <Jeremy.Pruett@duke-
energy.com>; McNash,James-geosyntec<[e-mail]>; Michael A. Reisman ([e-mail])
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [External]FW: Conceptual Design of Area 1 Cap
N: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified.Send all suspicious email as an attachment to

Brett—as you see below, Duke Energy continues the dialogue with the Asheville Airport regarding a 'permanent'
solution to Area I. This is in the conceptual stage and any 'permanent'solution is not expected to be completed until the
end of 2019.
We received your response dated June 25, 2018 and have begun working on a response to that. We could use more
clarification from you on Corrective Action 9. It states, "You are required to conduct a quantitative assessment of the
meteorological and groundwater conditions that would lead to a veneer failure of the cover thereby exposing CCR to
heavy rainfall and subsequent rapid erosion.' Please elaborate as to what you may be looking for on this item.
Duke Energy continues to move forward on the temporary stabilization plan submitted to you under cover dated June 8,
2018. However,your June 25 response did not address this issue. Is DEQ open to foregoing temporary stabilization of
Area I with the 'permanent' solution based on timing noted above (in place end of 2019)? Please let us know. 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
From: Hill,Tim S.
Sent: Monday,July 02, 2018 12:24 PM
To: Michael A. Reisman (mreisman(&flyavl.com)
Cc: Pickett, Matt; Toepfer, John R; Nordgren, Scott R.
Subject: Conceptual Design of Area 1 Cap
Mike:
As you are aware, DEQ is interested in our timing regarding a permanent cap solution to the east side of Area 1.We
discussed a parking lot as an option. We would like to move forward with an initial design on this, and want to make
sure we incorporate any of your concerns.To this end, can you provide the contact information for who can provide
this?
Also, since DEQ did not specifically comment on the temporary stabilization plan we submitted in their June 251h letter,
we are going to confirm that they still wish us to pursue this work assuming that a permanent solution wouldn't be
forthcoming until next year at the earliest assuming we can work through the details. I am planning on coming out next
Thursday the 121h and walkdown this plan with the Airport to make sure we address your concerns.
Tim
Tim Hill
Regional General Manager
CCP Operations and Maintenance/Plant Demolition
Western Carolina/ Florida
919-812-0879 (cell)
980-373-6166 (office)
2

Laverty, Brett
From: Toepfer, John R<[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2018 1:47 PM
To: Laverty, Brett
Cc: Nordgren, Scott R.; Pickett, Matt; Hill, Tim S.; Czop, Ryan; Pruett, Jeremy J.; McNash, James
-geosyntec; Michael A. Reisman ([e-mail])
Subject: [External] RE: Asheville Airport Area 1 60-inch RCP Inspection
Attachments: Area 1 RCP Photo Log_1_6_15.pdf
l • D. not click links or open attachments unless verified.
Brett—attached is the requested Altamont Environmental photolog(see "Area 1 RCP Photo Log 1-6 15.pdf"). Last fall
(November 2017), in response to an NOV, Duke Energy requested certain information from Charah regarding Area I
development, including CQA information. Charah's response to Duke Energy was that CQA information was not
available and directed such requests to the ARA Authority and/or AVCON.
Therefore,you will need to request from the Airport any CQA testing during construction of Area I. 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
From: Laverty, Brett [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 9:25 AM
To: Toepfer, John R; Michael A. Reisman
Cc: Davidson, Landon; Zimmerman,Jay; Risgaard, Jon
Subject: Asheville Airport Area 1 60-inch RCP Inspection
Exercise caution. This is an EXTERNAL email. DO NOT open
attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected
email. ***
John and Mike,
DWR is in the process of reviewing the 2018 Annual CCTV Inspection Video Assessment report on the 60-inch and 15-
inch RCP associated with.Area 1. 1 understand from the 90-day report that a photographic log prepared by Altamont
Environmental, Inc. [2015] and quality assurance (CQA)testing[during construction] performed by ARA Authority's
.consultant may be available for review. Please respond and indicate how these documents can be accessed.Thank you
for your time.
Brett Laverty
i -

i
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.laverty0ncdenr.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.
z

t, glaug-JeNg M 061MIffew
E NGI EER1 [VG 8c YDROG O OGY
231 HAYWOOD. STREET, ASHEVILLE, NC 28801
TEL.[phone] FAC.828.281.3351
WWW.ALTAMONTENVIRONMENTAL.COM
Area 160-Inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) Installation Photographs
Stationing is based on cross section A-A from Drawing No. 02 of the Asheville Regional Airport, Fly Ash
Beneficial Use plan set prepared by Charah on November 13, 2007. Stationing and direction is approximate.
P:\Progress Energy\Asheville Regional Airport\General\Site Visits\2015\Area 1 RCP Photo Log_1_6_15.Docx

Closed Structural Fill Area 1
Asheville Regional Airport, NC Page 2
July 29, 2008
i 1
i
i
Photo 1: View of the undisturbed condition of the stream and wetland through Area 1 at approximately STA
12+00,facing northwest.
Photo 2:View of the undisturbed condition of the stream and wetland through Area 1 at approximately STA
8+00,facing southeast.
P:\Progress Energy\Asheville Regional Airport\General\Site Visits\2015\Area 1 RCP Photo Log_1_6_15.Docx

• x •• •
~J i -,ter •�.f-J'Y Jf y, ""r., t 7q�F
•.,,rfr ! LI.'"3'!Gt �....-++� i J.• w�"r ala � L1 �� -+ u` .r � 7 •
r � Y
ry 5 r �Y T F ,ram r .- t f��•j
f1� ft } t f it } � _ ?P s•tr�}r it �rrf
E Y" � +i•� f „� 1� lye,!
yq,,; � ?'�'L' !:'f"•t! e r+ � r t d� � f-l/l�:'i� S�(d!^er \�rt ryp
�^• fNh�.t(1-��.t�ic .*.�'�r,.�f�dx+'_�i� r�.-'�"��'Y J �,`.�,,rg.�.f.x f•.l• N�li.^j,��1� J" rri�F
-�r -+. x+f x1 wy I S. .,s"•.y.far- x 'a'.;>„' z+'i`• � '+.'.
it , t;r s '`k7c'. N'",s�J'«r"49e'•r„ pr Y
:� s tic. �'rx A r F4 b .at"4 +lt .A� sv,�^�'`'� .t' > "l•;'
'1.. �'�.,r� -" ,�. c yli r .- dr1 � •!1, � , '' - +' sr.+'y•
3 ZL s
` .. r y-r f y > ' >4e-.A ==.a�•- '*��,,*^..rs"'-��-^rr---"✓ Vr !t
.; �'�� ���'s'S ''� rid...�� " "`'"• r—`".•+#s;,y. �,P
G" k7l �y
r �w .; � wiW�•(h-� " � �`rh� ' iSf 17�.hw4 s a ,'
z t \ {F
�:l�jn�Y ,r.. ,�3�r�gr�r� +.��r� �jaw.".V r^I�s .�3 i�'xb �t Lrj� i• t=�k
�� n t �' r� � y � � � a' ✓ 1dr S U�� ly ji Yt �� ���, f � 2Y ��1,
KA f ✓V ` ,� K t r1 r .w r, .t ✓
cG Misr ?ate"err �rl i f 'fi a k
'"^- r�'�• , f� ✓" '�y�* a '! v r '!r + ! r�'-r'('' ..+ Ai
r��„'pY:�f•#
r�r �'/ r�;. .%1. + +:t�r� ,�•,c§ .��.�.. r.:/F ,._� ��;.�.j.0 ..�t'..i�i� ru.,a e

r ,
Closed Structural Fill Area 1
Asheville Regional Airport, NC Page 4
I ,
Photo 5:View of the undisturbed condition of the stream and wetland through Area 1 with installed ash in
the background at approximately STA 8+00,facing northeast.
i
Photo 6:View of the undisturbed condition of the stream and wetland through Area 1 at approximately STA
8+00,facing south.
P:\Progress Energy\Asheville Regional Airport\General\Site Visits\20 15\Area 1 RCP Photo Log_1_6_15.Docx

- �4• �it�C ,�" 4ay.� �
7 s ,,.e-`?� .���.'�.-sue-ter `. psr'•�� .�,�\ + �,.x ,�._:.
I-':
�5 j -.,:':'�..r�.A-aye •2,�T��'i t w`x�O"'�, # �z'+�`x4 � ,�'7T r 1
3 ...3-a 's. ?kCdE _�i'�+ui;fir 43 �R,.'.S1^ 4�.s. r��afi�i:fiw^*� •-r Y3`��Ay�'^�'
•"�^,r 'y,.a ""'~~� "�`. � ,sus """�-�'"'��:�J",'. 't.
�i.;� ���� �: ,���,z ,`''z �—mow �,� - mom•' �.
-�'�.�r r...^x,��'3�- �,>�;"�•kcrr„w" a.�h�-j ��!'J^•".}-x...:T�+!F r � Y�'4*..

i�s' � .y�y�i�e. Y" �i fy :`Yr �# �k.`';.,, e?'rryry�4.�'�q�?`t �r�✓�> '{��,E� i
yr♦ air�i�u �'`� 'd •��t� f � � �f"�'S',.`d f y i� ,� k
1 I Eby
��,�/�'�>��fti'. ,v'�y� y+ �� i1�t� eL "" ��j� �rz,`�+n�±r -1•'
�a+d
C Y• �}M f hf
d3 ¢ ?Qvr `�� ff4k
�',i§ IM^sMuti'?y
�c�"'�jt !`t?✓t� t w _Pt'�� 1,��d +'.' r t2P"*S4� '4 .
PIC
C !V
d Ar'7',�s i 4�F�f;•'�;'Y dv +h. � �'r��t ��'... >• �r 'r'}i 7'' � '' i
pp-
4 a +
i -i�r t +'i "� 1 J'1 iG�y�!�� � �4 + 2 C-9?, v ♦t ^, t
y r�r�,,,z. ;�•t�sl _ � t /1f-h7�s� J „ -,..� �. � H _ ti� a.,
!I.Ti'�f,�/'-� —'�.. .,. ..��_. t>? Fl H' t r 4f Jam' � ;•- � n� 5 ,aJ�e r }^..a I
_.�' �: ... `�„ � .-sue- •-��� ' a��'�

Closed Structural Fill Area 1
Asheville Regional Airport, NC Page 7
Mr -¢x�
ONNO-
RM
s�'..s'a*,a� -
t.zc'�y
Photo 11:View of installed 60-inch, Class-V RCP.
zt t
t
�`!�",�-' ,�> � Ku�.t'�4•'{ t' ,:/.tom. aA
�r S
r �
Photo 12:View of the undisturbed condition of the stream and wetland through Area 1.
P:\Progress Energy\Asheville Regional Airport\General\Site Visits\2015\Area 1 RCP Photo Log_1_6_15.Docx

1 — — ■— • Ur•• • —
yx ,.
au4 t
ZI
'r'h OR
� M1 x r k `v�tit'
� 1 4
5 �5 #�& -w+ .t::: �. !d.fig. �,kd.,}�i,:u`vt" �.iSv".j -¢ t •k�I'f
of
11•
a
ST��„ � ,�- ��t �;��30�C,tl:� .�'^`-• \ T �,. 1st'�ram. O
y A � ,•

Closed Structural Fill Area 1
Asheville Regional Airport, NC Page 9
Photo 15:View of installed 60-inch, Class-V RCP at approximately STA 5+00,facing south.
-
3
arc a s X i x
s
MEN
1
Photo 16:View of areas of the stream that was rerouted and channelized at approximately STA 7+00,facing
southwest.
P:\Progress Energy\Asheville Regional Airport\General\Site Visits\2015\Area 1 RCP Photo Log_1_6_15.Docx

Closed Structural Fill Area 1
Asheville Regional Airport, NC Page 10
January 22, 2009
(,� ' '.,'t`'M}`A�"`1I ixy��i�I'��I {�� •��s�1✓�"�err rm`�'�.�n �Y���ee�x f r;,'
_� ._.-c;'='��,,� •a,. _tic.�;a��-�{• `'� - �•„ �'+'71 r'�r a'��cy�:�-� `
:R S Ls.rtu��:' ` ..• i I� � ��{:. �- ty,ae.� t+Y9 n'yII h'�.ti�.'r��'r�..
o ,
i "s+x,. ai"£i •' 2: h o.,,, z Cji ?x.`Md) P.. .,.y
Photo 17:View of a junction box that tied the new 60-inch, Class-V RCP into the existing 54-inch RCP at
approximately STA 12+00,facing southwest.
'F
?�
T ✓., M
Photo 18:View of cover soil over the installed 60-inch, Class-V RCP and the stream and wetland in Area 1 at
approximately STA 13+00,facing north.
P:\Progress Energy\Asheville Regional Airport\General\Site Visits\2015\Area 1 RCP Photo Log_1_6_15.Docx

6r�-
,,wy
7-7
ik
j' r .t f ��'�G=•+tj awe
N (�
lye P f la�C t ••`' `nx `+'."�"`�" ��,.��.r •��.�"' .r ��� TT � :.F' 's 'fie--sT��� i

r
Closed Structural Fill Area 1
Asheville Regional Airport, NC Page 12
S b 1
tR
Photo 21:View of the washed stone that filled the stream and wetland at approximately STA 12+00,facing
north.
} t
s �y
6
Photo 22:View of installed 60-inch, Class-V RCP at approximately STA 5+00,facing north.
.P:\Progress Ener&\Asheville Regional Airport\General\Site Visits\2015\Area 1 RCP Photo Log_1_6_15.Docx

Closed Structural Fill Area 1
Asheville Regional Airport, NC Page 13
February 17, 2009
'o,�owl."77z
Zr
Mn is'T
EM
M{{55 'l'
20Wwl
.
.z s nr°ur' ..s,� ,,k""A� inn'r ` r rx `ZjY•m X,,ry� ,�'.
�:PyrP ^;a 1'`.so 1tt..�",r F �,��/JS�Y �'��) i1'` '`�y'h�1 > i"�,#�°•` �'';a..�.�23�.
F ✓r k f ( (I' ,�. 7.�aCi k � �8" 4atY i R l� G
Photo 23:View of the washed stone that filled the stream and wetland at approximately STA 13+00,facing
north.
} 7 yt; Fyx
.,' y t $
AN
MIRYv
( � yE'j-' 13s• ltY'
PU
Photo 24:View of the washed stone that filled the stream and wetland approximately STA 5+00,facing
north.
P:\Progress Energy\Asheville Regional Airport\General\Site Visits\2015\Area 1 RCP Photo Log_1_6_15.Docx

Closed Structural Fill Area 1
Asheville Regional Airport, NC Page 14
Y As�1i1r f
` Y — IMI
�`'r o�"'��
•���``�S Sri 4��`t'�S �`,a�°+�'� y��+S2�ry � F {� �e^'�r �.���,."Z, :-t`
€ „y �k,._ �.yw a,�ra��?4 g...iw�`�� ' �e�� 7�yy t•��� �x, �.. _.oiy �4,=S•i
Photo 25:View of installed 60-inch, Class-V RCP at approximately STA 9+00,facing north.
March 24, 2009
lilt is JR,
L
•K
t s
•�`'�' s-i,'8XP 7'•ePa �`' �� '^kY� '� �al�y'.Y�.s4. MIN-..4�vs
'R.+"'T'� 1 "a'i•'� -, i�J'k` )cg-*.: q `' i?•:
g
,.•� � 'k�.a � rra'>S'.�xyi.3 ""fir Li I�'. N G r�'�• ,�.
Vw
Photo 26:View of cover soil over the 60-inch, Class-V RCP and washed stone that filled the stream and
wetland at approximately STA 11+00,facing northwest.
P:\Progress Energy\Asheville Regional Airport\General\Site Visits\2015\Area 1 RCP Photo Log_1_6_15.Docx

Closed Structural Fill Area 1
Asheville Regional Airport, NC Page 15
e —obAM
TM #�..''
*a�tr.°, r �,. - .° 5 '
IMOM
y
Photo 27:View of cover soil over the 60-inch, Class-V RCP and washed stone that filled the stream and
wetland at approximately STA 10+00,facing southeast.
April 8, 2009
17.
�z
-�.wl .. �`'S '' A3- Foal ✓ �'.. j ,' ��T�Photo 28:View of cover soil over the 60-inch, Class-V RCP and washed stone that filled the stream and
wetland as it nears the finished elevation of the subgrade at approximately STA 10+00,facing northwest.
P:\Progress Energy\Asheville Regional Airport\General\Site Vis its\20 15\Area 1 RCP Photo Log_1_6_15.Docx

Closed Structural Fill Area 1
Asheville Regional Airport, NC Page 16
April 23, 2009
r
"�` � sb`r�` "��s,'^tai�+ b" �.s.�'�a.a;)ii'•.�i'�7�'t�7��•15#v� � ���t �`� ��.'�;.
sr ,�� r���' 'r `t't`vz'��i ��4 f5,+�,Y Y•s�k.y���.,`^%,,m�k�-�=lea i��;�5.-�+'t' f ��"§�``�
Photo 29:View of prepared subgrade covering the 60-inch, Class-V RCP and washed stone that filled the
stream and wetland at approximately STA 8+00,facing northwest.
Me
r
!;t'� f�` �.�1,n � r,� � � ^ ���'"�ay1-"5����.�Px�y„�3a,t,rr, rYyt���.2� _•.
Photo 30:View of the prepared subgrade covering the 60-inch, Class-V RCP and washed stone that filled the
stream and wetland at approximately STA 10+00,facing west.
P:\Progress Energy\Asheville Regional Airport\General\Site Visits\20 15\Area 1 RCP Photo Log_1_6_15.Docx

• -• Structural Fill Area 1
Asheville Regional Airport, - 1.7
May • 2009
Photo 31:View of clay and ash i installed over the prepared subgrade at approximately STA 8+00,facing
Photo 32:View of the prepared subgrade with clay and ash in the background at approximately STA 5+00,
facing south.
,` �r�.,-y'e/`f'�• Wit?"..l _ ' _ //' �.-€�-s'��at��� .
' '��^ �'—w - •ate-�-�.,?.+•r _ ». ,
•• - • o• I o • Log_1_6-15.Docx

Closed Structural Fill Area 1
Asheville Regional Airport, NC Page 18
June 5, 2009
Photo 33:View of the prepared subgrade at approximately STA 11+00,facing northwest.
Photo 34:View of clay liner and ash installed over the prepared subgrade at approximately STA 8+00,facing
west.
P:\Progress Energy\Asheville Regional Airport\General\Site Visits\2015\Area 1 RCP Photo Log_1_6_15.Docx

Closed Structural Fill Area 1
Asheville Regional Airport, NC Page 19
i
f
I
J.
Photo 35:View of clay liner and ash installed over the prepared subgrade at approximately STA 10+00,
facing southwest.
June 18, 2009
- e
Photo 36:View of ash installed over the clay liner at approximately STA 13+00,facing west.
P:\Progress Energy\Asheville Regional Airport\General\Site Visits\20 15\Area 1 RCP Photo Log_1_6_15.Docx

Closed
Asheville Regional Airport, Page 20
July 2, •
Photo 37:View of ash being installed over the clay liner and prepared subgrade at approximately STA 6+00,
facing southwest.
__.-mac:-,.- _� - ._. ;y�..,r;•;-
Photo 38:View of ash installed at approximately STA-13+00,facing east.
!3 _
•,,f��j �-ct ;V`.75����.,��"1�.�d�� s :rat`as��.'.
4*•+-�^j� ire r�,yi,e� � Z`.. ♦ `wi�� ,� _ r - ,

Closed Structural Fill Area 1
Asheville Regional Airport, NC Page 21
Photo 39:View of prepared subgrade with installed ash in the background at approximately STA 12+00,
facing north.
P:\Progress Energy\Asheville Regional Airport\General\Site Visits\2015\Area 1 RCP Photo Log_1_6_15.Docx

Laverty, Bret#
From: Michael A. Reisman <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 11:43 AM
To: Laverty, Brett; John Coon
Cc: Davidson, Landon
Subject: RE: [External]Airport Inspection 6/28
�CAVTION'. D. attachments
Brett-John Coon and I walked the area this morning,and feel that the slope is now stable enough for us to get some of
our smaller equipment onto. We will make this a priority for next week.
Mike Reisman
From: Laverty, Brett<[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday,June 29, 2018 8:42 AM
To: Michael A. Reisman<[e-mail]>
Cc: Davidson, Landon<[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: [External] Airport Inspection 6/28
Mike,
Can you provide me a status update on the Airports plan to address the conditions at Area 1 as outlined in Matt Pickett's
email below?
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
�011 .
—- -Nothinq 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 [mai Ito:[e-mail]]
Sent:Thursday,June 28, 2018 3:31 PM
To: Laverty, Brett<brett.laverty@ ncdenr.gov>;John Coon<*[e-mail]>
Cc: HiII,Tim'S. <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Airport Inspection 6/28
CAUTION:External email. i. not click links or open attachments unless verified.
Brett—I inspected the eastern north slope of Area 1 today and found no visible changes or.exposed,ash.
John—It looks like you have recently mowed the portion of Area 1 inside the security fence, but have not mowed
anything(top or slopes)outside the fence. The area outside the fence needs a good deal of attention:
• The vegetation on the top (outside the fence) and slopes is getting in the 8"-12" high range and is limiting
inspection. Of course,this is particularly important on the slope,specifically the north slope on both east and
west sections, and it needs to be mowed before my next inspection. Though the flags are in marking the survey
markers,the markers themselves only stick out of the ground 2-3" at the most and should be well below your
mowing decks.You can run over the flags, and they shouldn't harm your equipment.
• There is quite a bit of vegetation growing in the temporary repair that either needs to be either weed-eated or
sprayed.
• The grass is very tall on the top of the bench at the toe of the fill and needs to be cut down.
• The vegetation on the north slope of the western section is very tall as well and needs to be cut.
If you still lack the equipment you feel you need to mow these slopes, I can provide you the contact information of the
contractor we use at the station that mows our dams. They are very reasonably priced and do a great job. My next
inspection will be week of 7/9,so it would be very helpful if you could have these areas addressed by then.
Thanks,
Matt Pickett,P.E.
Lead Engineer- Duke Energy
Asheville and W.S. Lee CCP System Owner
200 CP&L Drive
Arden, NC 28704
AVL—828.650.7128
LEE—864-847-3213
CELL—828.216.1398
2

Laverty, Brett
From: Michael A. Reisman <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 9:27 AM
To: Laverty, Brett
Subject: RE: [External]Asheville Airport Area I - Response to DEQ April 30, 2018 Letter Report
o. not click,links or-open attachm,dnts unless Ve6fied.Send,all suspicious email as an,attachment10
I have been trying unsuccessfully since we last spoke to obtain the video of the RCP from Duke. The link that I believe
was in the report is broken and we cannot access it. If you have a good link, maybe you can send it, as our engineer has
still not been able to see it.
From: Laverty, Brett<brett.lave [e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday,June 28, 2018 9:25 AM
To: Michael A. Reisman<[e-mail]>
Cc: Davidson, Landon <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] Asheville Airport Area I - Response to DEQ April 30, 2018 Letter Report
Mike,
Have you had a chance to review the RCP assessment report? Our Department is convening a conference call on
Monday to discuss the condition of the RCP. It would be helpful to share comment from the Airport at our Monday
morning meeting. I am at my desk today if you need to reach me.Thank you in advance for your assistance.
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
-:::f-"'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: Laverty, Brett
Sent:Tuesday,June 19, 2018 10:54 AM
1

To: Michael A. Reisman (mreismanCuriyavl.com)<[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: [External] Asheville Airport Area I - Response to DEQApril 30, 2018 Letter Report
...RCP assessment attached
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(@-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.
From:Toepfer,John R [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday,June 08, 2018 2:03 PM
To: Davidson, Landon<[e-mail]>; Laverty,_Brett<brett.lave [e-mail]>
Cc: Frost, Larry<[e-mail]>; Michael A. Reisman ([e-mail])<[e-mail]>;John
Coon ([e-mail])<[e-mail]>;Weisker, Brian R<[e-mail]>; Hill,Tim S.
<Tim.Hill @duke-energy.com>; Nordgren,Scott R. <[e-mail]>; Pickett, Matt
<[e-mail]>; Karably, Ken<[e-mail]>; Culbert, Erin<Erin.Culbert@duke-
energy.com>; Kafka, Michael T. <[e-mail]>; Hanchey, Matthew F.<Matthew.Hanchey@duke-
energy.com>; Hart, Randy<[e-mail]>;Struble;Steven I <[e-mail]>;
Summerville,Allison Y. <[e-mail]>;Sullivan, Ed M<[e-mail]>;
Wells,James<[e-mail]>; Czop, Ryan<[e-mail]>; Pruett,Jeremy J.
<[e-mail]>; Williams,Teresa Lynne<[e-mail]>; Whisnant, Garry A
<[e-mail]>;Walls,Jason A<[e-mail]>; Woodward,Tina
<[e-mail]>; Cranford, Chuck<[e-mail]>; McNash,James-
geosyntec<[e-mail]>; Damasceno,Victor-Geosyntec<[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]
Subject: [External] Asheville Airport Area I - Response to DEQ April 30,2018 Letter Report
CAUTION:�xternal'email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified.Send al'I suspicious email a's an attachment to
Landon and Brett—attached is the response from Duke Energy and Asheville Airport regarding DEQ's April 30, 2018
letter report titled "Review of 90-Day Report Submittal and Required Interim Measures". Also attached is the finalized
camera inspection report of the underground reinforced concrete pipes at Area I fill (item #13 of your April 30 letter
report). I understand you have the video and a draft report received via a separate submittal. Please let me know of
questions on the attached.
cc line—please file accordingly, no hard copies will be sent.
2

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
3

k ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretaay,
Water Resources LINDA CULPEPPER
Environmental Quality June 25, 2018 Interim Director
John R.Toepfer, P.E.
Duke Energy
410 S. Wilmington Street/NC15
Raleigh, NC 27601
Lew Bleweis,A.A.E., Executive Director
Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority
61 Terminal Drive, Suite 1
Fletcher, N.C. 28732
RE: Response to Duke Energy's June 8, 2018 corrective action work plan for the Asheville
Airport Area 1 CCR Structural Fill
Dear Mr. Toepfer and Mr. Bleweis,
The Asheville Regional office (ARO) recently received Duke Energy's response to our April 30,
2018 review letter concerning the 90-day report for the Asheville Airport Area 1 CCR structural
fill. The purpose of this letter is to provide comment and recommendations on the proposed
corrective action workplan as outlined in your June 8, 2018 correspondence.
Required Interim Measures:
Based on the timeline presented, DWR would encourage Duke and the Airport to proceed with
conceptual planning of a permanent cap for Area 1, as required by permit WQ0000020, in
tandem with implementation of the corrective actions and measures.
Corrective Action 2:
The proposed locations for PZ-2S and PZ-3D is acceptable to the ARO.
During the May 14, 2018 technical meeting, the ARO proposed sampling the water quality from
a limited number of piezometers. Based on the new piezometer configuration, the ARO is
revising its request to include a one-time sampling event at piezometers PZ-2, PZ-2S, PZ-3, and
PZ-3D. Water samples should be analyzed for the full range of coal ash constituents.
The ARO would like the option of observing the piezometer installations. Please coordinate the
drilling schedule with the ARO at your earliest convenience.
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
2090 U.S.Highway 70,Swannanoa,North Carolina28778
828-296-4500

John R.Toepfer
Lew Bleweis
June 25,2018
Page 2 of 4
Corrective Action 3:
The proposed locations for monitoring wells MW7 and MW8 is acceptable to the ARO.
However, proposed monitoring well MW-6 appears to be located beyond the review boundary.
You will need to confirm that all three monitoring wells are located on the appropriate
regulatory boundary and adjust their locations as needed.
During the May 14, 2018 technical meeting, there was a brief discussion concerning the need
for an additional background well to supplement MW4A. Have you evaluated the need for an
additional background monitoring well for Area 1?
The ARO would like the option of observing the monitoring well installations. Please coordinate
the drilling schedule with the ARO at your earliest convenience.
Corrective Action 4:
It was initially proposed that pressure transducers with datalogge,rs would be installed within
PZ-2, PZ-3, PZ-4, and PZ-5. Based on the new piezometer configuration, the ARO is revising its
request to include installation of pressure transducers at PZ-2, PZ-2S, PZ-3, and PZ-3D. Because
the fate (travel time) of infiltrating precipitation within and beneath the structural fill is
unknown,the pressure transducers should remain in.the four piezometers longer than the
proposed 4 months.
Corrective Action 5:
Four Shelby tubes will be advanced to collect undisturbed soil cover samples to evaluate the in-
situ hydraulic conductivity of the soil cover. Please ensure that both the east and west soil caps
are evaluated.
Corrective Action 7:
The inclinometer profile plots in the Area 1 piezometer and survey data for May 2018 appear to
be tilt change plots only. Begin monthly reporting of both tilt change (incremental
displacement) and profile change (cumulative displacement) in the inclinometer profile plots.
Corrective Action 8:
Given that specifications or conformance tests on the surrounding fill and drainage aggregate
system are not available, and that no drilling,testing or monitoring wells are proposed for the
RCP corridor, how will the values for phreatic and piezometric porewater pressures and
material properties within and below the RCP be determined for the stability analysis of the

John R.Toepfer
Lew Bleweis
June 25,2018
Page 3 of 4
RCP corridor? Please provide a plan to collect data and/or information to support the pending
stability analysis along the RCP corridor.
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 backfill/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.
Seismic Liquefaction Susceptibility Criteria included in the 90-day report indicates that the only
material type analyzed was CCR (CCP). Please clarify if this liquefaction assessment also applied
to the backfill material around the RCP both above and below the GCL.
SlideTm by RocScience can model earthquake loads on a slope through use of a seismic
acceleration coefficient to evaluate inertial forces that can produce sliding failures. This type of
analysis, or one more appropriate, should be performed on the RCP corridor materials and
portions of the Area 1 fill with CCP, and account for pore water pressures above and below the
GCL.
The 2018 Annual CCTV Inspection Video Assessment Report (June 1,2018) rated the 60-inch
RCP as fair with a moderate risk of failure. You are required to incorporate the RCP inspection
report into your stability analysis of the RCP corridor. In your assessment,you will need to
address the following questions:
• How does the 2018 NASSCO PACP grading system compare with past RCP inspection
ratings conducted by Duke Energy?
• How does the recent fair rating with moderate risk of failure for the 60-inch RCP affect
the short-term and long-term stability and/or factor of safety for the Area 1 CCP
structural fill?
• Will baseflow infiltration degrade the RCP over time? In other words, will baseflow
infiltration eventually erode and widen existing cracks observed along the RCP?
• Given the current conditions, can the 60-inch/15-inch RCP withstand a 25-year, 24-hour
storm event?
• The Asheville Airport Authority recently divulged to the ARO that the stormwater
system that drains into the 60-inch RCP includes the north-end of the airport terminal
and commercial areas along Airport Road. You will be required to determine and report
the total drainage area for the 60-inch RCP?
• What plans do you have to repair the RCP?

John R.Toepfer
Lew Bleweis
June 25,2018
Page 4 of 4
Corrective Action 9:
You are required to conduct a quantitative assessment of the meteorological and ground water
conditions that would lead to a veneer failure of the cover thereby exposing CCR to heavy
rainfall and subsequent rapid erosion.
Corrective Action 10:
The ARO is requiring quarterly surface water monitoring at 8 surface water locations. It was
recently discovered that discharge at the end of the 60-inch RCP is negligible expect during
periods of storm runoff. Most of the surface water/baseflow passing through the 60-inch RCP is
captured by the 15-inch stormwater line. Therefore, surface water monitoring at SW-1 should
be replaced by SW-9, which represents the discharge from the 15-inch line.This change will
impact both quarterly and biannual compliance surface water monitoring.
Should you have any questions regarding these matters, please feel free to contact me or at
[phone].
Sincerely,
IDocuSigned by:
1-& .4GWe,it;t
8F6E55D512AE438...
Brett Laverty
Water Quality Regional Operations
Asheville Regional Office
ec: Michael Reisman —Asheville Regional Airport Authority
John Toepfer—Duke Energy
cc: WQ Asheville Files

Laverty, Brett
From: Toepfer, John R <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 4:12 PM
To: Laverty, Brett
Cc: Czop, Ryan; Pickett, Matt; Nordgren, Scott R.;[e-mail]; Woodward, Tina;
Sullivan, Ed M
Subject: [External]Asheville Airport Area I Surface Water Sampling
CAUTION: D• ot click links or open attachments unless verified.Send all suspiciousto
Brett—based on DEQ comments(#10& 11) below, Duke Energy is proposing to sample surface waters in July and
January timeframes outside the regular permit sampling times of April and November. We plan to be at Airport
beginning on July 9, 2018 at 9:00 AM. We will sample surface water locations specified in number 10 below. Locations
specified in number 11 below we propose to complete the one-time 2B/2L type evaluation also this July. Please let me
know of questions.,thanks
10.Surface water monitoring—The DWR is requiring quarterly surface water monitoring at the following sites:
SW2-A1, SW3-A1, SW4b-A1, SW5-A1,SW6-A1, SW8-A1, SW9-A1, and SW12-Al. Samples should include both
total and dissolved samples and be analyzed for CCP constituents. When practical, sampling should be
conducted at base flow conditions to the maximum extent possible and at least 5 days after a rain event of
any magnitude.
11. Assessment of surface water—The DWR is requiring a one-time monitoring event of select surface water
sites to determine violations of 213 surface water standards using
the criteria for hardness-dependent freshwater metals outlined in 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (11). Monitoring sites
will include SW3-A1, SW4b-AI, SW5-AI, SW8-AI, SW9-A1, and SW12-Al. Samples should be analyzed for CCP
constituents. When practical, sampling should be conducted at base flow conditions to the maximum extent
possible and at least 5 days after a rain event of any magnitude.
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

N.C.R.E Rule 4o8
Offer to Compromise
Asheville Airport Structural Fill Consolidated Contested Cases
Settlement Term Sheet
(June 19, 2oi8) .
Duke Energy and NCDEQ will enter into a Special Order by Consent("SOC"),which will
stipulate the following:
• The SOC will address all issues related to the subject matter of the November 17,
2017 and April 11, 2018 notices of violation (collectively"NOW).
• Duke Energy will undertake the interim measures identified in Duke Energy's
"Response to DEQ's April 30, 2018 Review of the go-Day Report,Asheville
Airport Area I Structural Fill, Buncombe County, North Carolina"letter dated
June 8, 2018 and accompanying Geosyntec letter dated the same day.
• Duke Energy will undertake all corrective action measures necessary to control,
minimize, or eliminate any potential slope failure of the east and west structural
fill cells within Area 1 and minimize the need for further maintenance of the
structural fill. Corrective action measures shall include—
o grading Area 1 to promote run-off of liquids; and
o capping the top with a rainfly system,liner, or other impervious surface,
such as asphalt,to control, minimize, or eliminate,to the maximum extent
feasible,infiltration of liquids into the structural fill, and releases of CCR,,
leachate, or contaminated run-off to the environment.
• If Duke Energy's engineering analysis concludes that it is necessary to install a
groundwater extraction system to lower the phreatic surface below the existing
GCL, such a system will be installed.
• Duke Energy will monitor and report as set out in structural fill permit No.
WQ0000020 ("Permit") and corrective action correspondence from NCDEQ
dated September 15, 2017 and April 30, 2018.
• By its terms,the Permit expires on August 31, 2020, and Duke Energy does not
intend to submit an application to renew it in light of the fact that(i) neither the
structural fill nor the site on which it is located is owned by Duke Energy,but
instead by the airport; and(ii) all permitted facilities have been completed(i.e.,
"closed"). NCDEQ will stipulate in the SOC that it will not seek to require that
Duke Energy apply for a Permit renewal.

N.C.R.E Rule 4o8
Offer to Compromise
• To the extent NCDEQ determines a permittee is required for operation and
maintenance of the structural fill and monitoring system, including the
monitoring wells, piezometers,water level loggers, etc.,beyond August 31, 2020,
such tasks shall be performed by an appropriate permittee, which shall not be
Duke Energy.
• During the remainder of the current Permit term, Duke Energy will continue to
undertake all actions required thereunder. Although Duke Energy does not
interpret the Permit to require that it undertake maintenance of the structural
fill, Duke Energy will expressly agree to be responsible for this work(as reflected
in the second and third bullets above).
• NCDEQ will stipulate that the violations alleged in the NOV have been fully
resolved and that no penalties will be assessed.
• NCDEQ will withdraw the NOV once the terms of SOC have been satisfied, and
Duke Energy will voluntarily dismiss the consolidated cases.
• The SOC will terminate on the later of the following—
• Upon completion of all of the interim and long-term activities identified in
the second and third bullets above; or
o August 31, 2020
• Terms for non-compliance and other standard SOC terms.
2

ACCESS AGREEMENT
THIS ACCESS AGREEMENT(".Agreement")is made and entered as of-February 29, 2016
("Effective.Date"),.by and among the Greater Aghev Ile,Regional Airport Authority, a body corporate and
politic("GARAA") with an address at 61 Terminal Drive'Suite'l,Fletcher,NC 28732,Duke Energy
Progress,LLC,a North Carolina limited liability company f/k/a'Carolina Power&Light Company d/b/a
Progress Energy Carolinas,Inc. ("DEP") with an address.at 550 S.Tryon.Street,Charlotte,NC 28202,
ti
and Charah,Inc.,a Kentucky,corporation ("Charah")with an address at 12601 Plantside Drive,.
Louisville, Kentucky 40299.
RECITALS: j
1
i
f
WHEREAS, the Asheville Regional Airport Authority ("ARAM ), and Charah entered into. an.
Agreement dated November 6, 2007,. which agreement was amended by the ARAA and Charah on or
about May 21, 2009 by Amendment No. 1 and was amended by the ARAA and Charah on or about June
:
29, 2009 by.Amendment No.2 (as amended, the"Structural Fill Agreement") pursuant to which Charah
agreed to construct structural fills("Structural Fills") at the Asheville Regional Airport("Airport")using f
i
bottom ash and fly ash(collectively"Ash")obtained from DEP;
i
WHEREAS, the GARAA was created by Session Law 2012-121, which was ratified on June 28,:.
2012 by the Genial Assembly of North Carolina;
WHEREAS,Paragraph 16 of the Structural,Fill Agreement provides that the ARAA may transfer j
or assign the Structural Fill Agreement to " . . . any governmental entity"; I
WHEREAS, the Structural Fill Agreement was assigned by the ARAA to the GARAA,.and such
assignment was confirmed by Charah in,that document entitled Confirmation of Assignment,Conveyance
and Transfer(`Confirmation");.

WHEREAS,. DEP and Charah entered' into an.Ash Reclamation Contract dated June 18, 2007
pursuant to which DEP supplied:and Charah accepted Ash used for the purposes of the.Structural Fill at
the Airport referred to as "Area I"(as amended on June 19, 2607,May 4, 2009 and July 1,2009'the"Area
I Supply Agreement");
WHEREAS, DEP and Charah entered into an Area IV Ash Reclamation Contract dated
September 30,2010 pursuant to which DEP supplied and Charah accepted Ash used for the purposes of
the Structural Fill at the.Airport referred to as "Area IV" (as amended on.July 16, 2010 and August 15,
2011 the"Area IV Supply Agreement");
I
WHEREAS, DEP and Charah entered into an Area III. Ash Reclamation Contract dated January
11, 2013 pursuant to which DEP supplied and Charah accepted Ash used for the purposes of the
Structural Fill at the Airport referred to as "Area 11I" (as amended on February 12, 2015 the "Area III
Supply Agreement" and collectively with the Area I Supply Agreement and Area 1V Supply Agreement
referred to as the"Supply Agreements");
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Structural Fill.Agreement; Charah has.completed Structural Fills in
Areas I, 111 and!Vat the Airport, as defined.in the Structural Fill Agreement("Closed-Structural Fills");
WHEREAS, the construction of Structural Fills.in Area H at the Airport has not been contracted
for and neither its operation nor closure or post-closure is covered by this Agreement;
WHEREAS, Ash from. DEP's Asheville Plant was utilized in the Closed Structural Fills at the
Airport pursuant to DEP's Distribution of Residual Solids (DORS)permit (WQ0000020) issued by the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources [now Department of Environmental
Quality(DEQ)] on February 16,2006;
2
i
1

( C
WHEREAS, the DORS permit was superseded by Permit WQ0000020 issued to DEP for the
Structural Fill Projects at the Airport on September 2, 2015 (the "CCP Structural Fill Permit") attached
herewith.;
WHEREAS, the CCP Structural Fill.Permit issued to DEP requires it to prepare and maintain an
Operations and Maintenance Plan for the Structural Fills at the Airport, install and regularly monitor
groundwater monitoring wells at such Structural. Fills and regularly inspect and report on groundwater
conditions at the monitoring wells and physical conditions at the Structural Fills; and
WHEREAS, DEP will require access to the Airport property to fulfill. its permit obligations for
1
the term of.the CCP'Structural Fill Permit; I
NOW, THEREFORE, GARAA, DEP and Charah wish to set forth.the obligations of the parties
relating,to post-closure monitoring and responsibilities for the Closed Structural Fills.
AGREEMENTS:
i
In consideration of the mutual covenants and. agreements herein contained, the parties hereto i
I
warrant and,agree as follows:
f
1. DEP's Obligations. Notwithstanding anything in the Structural Fill Agreement or-the Supply i
Agreements to the contrary, DEP agrees that upon the Effective Date of this Agreement,.DEP
will be responsible for complying with all air, soil, groundwater or other monitoring, sampling, or
reporting requirements for the Closed Structural Fills, as specified in the CCP Structural Fill '
Permit and for the period covered by the CCP Structural Fill Permit or for such longer period as
such permitting, monitoring,sampling, closure or reporting may be required under applicable law
or by NCDEQ, or other government agency having jui7sdiction..As between GARAA and DEP,
DEP will bear the cost land expense of complying with the CCP Structural Fill Permit. DEP
agrees to provide notice to the GARAA of any condition identified during its inspections
3

potentially reflecting a variance from the closure obligations under the.'CCP Structural Fill
Permit, and DEP will notify the GARAA prior to providing an time sensitive notifications to
Y
F
I
applicable agencies of any such condition.
;
a
2, GARAA's Obligations. Continuing after the Effective Date of this Agreement, GARAA shall be
responsible for the upkeep of the surface of the sites where the Closed Structural Fills have been
iff
constructed, to include without limitation, regularly cutting the grass at the sites, control ofE
`F
woody vegetation along the cap and side slopes of the structural fill cells, erosion monitoring,
i
control and repair as well as provision of security. GARAA will not conduct or otherwise permit
V
or allow any third party to construct, drill or otherwise establish any private or public water
!i
1
supply wells within the compliance boundary of the Closed Structural Fills or within 100 feet
outside the perimeter thereof. If construction, drilling or excavation on or adjacent to the sites
i
where the Closed Structural Fills are located is planned, GARAA.will first (i) provide DEP with
prior written notice of such proposed activities and (ii) provide at DEP's expense such
documents, plans, and specifications as may be reasonably requested by DEP to determine the
scope of such proposed activities. Prior written notice is- provided without right of approval.
GARAA agrees that it will provide notice of the existence and the location of the Closed
a
1
Structural Fills to all third parties performing services for GARAA in the vicinity of the Closed
Structural Fills excluding DEP and Charah. GARAA also agrees to assure right of entry by the
parties hereto and the state for the purposes of the Structural Fill Permit and inspection,
monitoring and compliance therewith subject to all GARAA access and security procedures.
GARAA further agrees to provide DEP and Charah with copies of all relevant notices of
nonconformance, noncompliance and other notices relating to the Structural Fills at the Airport
and copies of all audits or other documents that were provided to GARAA relating to the
Structural Fills.
3. Charah's Obligations. Nothing in this Agreement in any way relieves or will be interpreted or
construed to relieve Charah from any obligations Charah has.to GARAA under the Structural Fill
4

t t
Agreement and. Charah acknowledges and hereby reaffirms such obligations. Nothing in this.
Agreement in any way relieves or will be interpreted or construed to relieve Charah from any
obligations Charah has to DEP under the Supply Agreements and Charah acknowledges and
hereby reaffirms such obligations. Charah will complete all surface restoration to address
existing erosion conditions in Areas I, III and IV at the Airport to enable the GARAA to
undertake routine ongoing maintenance for these areas. Upon Charalu's completion of such
surface restoration, Charah will notify GARAA in writing and GARAA agrees to advise Charah
in writing promptly thereafter whether GARAA believes any additional surface restoration is
necessary to address existing erosion conditions in Areas I, III and IV to enable the GARAA to
undertake routine ongoing maintenance for these areas.
4. Right of Access. Commencing with the execution of this Agreement and continuing until all
obligations of DEP and Charah are completed under the provisions of this Agreement, the Supply
Agreements and the Structural Fill Agreements, GARAA hereby agrees to provide DEP and
Charah, as applicable, with timely access to those areas within the airport necessary for (a) DEP J
to fulfill its monitoring, inspection and any other obligations under the Structural Fill Permit and
i
any permits subsequently issued and(b) Charah to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, the t
f
Supply Agreements and. the Structural Fill Agreements.. Charah or DEP, as applicable, agree it
will (i) provide to GARAA reasonable advance notice of the'monitoring and inspection.schedule
and any other access reasonably needed by such party for the purposes of compliance and
remediation as contemplated under this Agreement; (ii) will participate in applicable safety and
security training as may be required by GARAA and/or the Airport; and (iii) will observe all
applicable safety and security requirements of the GARAA while on Airport property.
5. Term. This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and will continue until the.
expiration of Permit No. WQ0000020 or such later date as may be required to complete the
monitoring, sampling, closure, or other actions required pursuant to this Agreement. DEP will
5

d
Y
perform groundwater monitoring for a period of twenty years or until the expiration of Permit No.
WQ0000020;whichever occurs later.
6. Relationship of the Parties. Nothing in this Agreement will confer or be interpreted or construed
to confer any relationship between GARAA and DEP for the purposes of the Structural Fill
Agreement and/or the Supply Agreements. Nothing in this Agreement will confer or be
interpreted or construed to confer any relationslup between Charah and DEP for the purposes of
the Structural Fill Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, (i) the Structural FiII Agreement is
I
made for the benefit of the parties thereto only and no other person is intended as a beneficiary of
the Structural Fill Agreement in any respect and (i ) the Supply Agreements is made for the
i
benefit of the parties thereto.only and no other person is intended as a beneficiary of the Supply
Agreements in any respect.
I
7. Amendments and Waivers. Any term of this Agreement may be amended or waived only with
the written consent of the parties, which consent must be signed and dated by an authorized
officer of each party. Any waiver, if any, will be strictly limited to the purposes, extent and
duration for which such waiver was expressly given.
8. Assignment. Except to an entity that succeeds to all or substantially all of the assets or business
of a party, no party may assign or delegate any part or all of this Agreement without the prior
Written.consent of each other party hereto and any attempt to do so shall be void with the
exception that GARAA may transfer or assign this agreement to the City of Asheville, the County
of Buncombe or any other governmental entity. Subject to the foregoing, this Agreement is
binding upon the parties and their permitted successors and assignees.
9. Severability. If one or more provisions of this Agreement are held to be unenforceable under
applicable law, then such provision shall be excluded from this Agreement, the balance of the
6
{

1
Agreement shall be interpreted as if such provision were so excluded and the balance of the
Agreement shall be enforceable in accordance with its terms.
10. Notices. Any notice required or permitted by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be
deemed sufficient upon receipt, when delivered'O;personally, (ii) by an industry recognized and
reputable delivery service (such as Federal Express,or UPS), (iii) by email, provided a copy is
also sent via U.S. mail as certified or registered mail with postage prepaid, or(iv) by U.S. mail as
certified or registered mail with postage prepaid (and not sent via any of the other means
identified in subparts(i)-(iii) above), if such notice is addressed to the party to be notified at such
party's address as set forth herein or as subsequently 'modified by written notice. The email
address for GARAA shall be the then current Executive Director's email address. All notices to
GARAA shall be to the attention -of Executive Director. All notices to DEP shall be to the
attention of the Vice President, Coal Combustion Products Operations and Maintenance. All
notices to Charah shall be to the attention of the President and Chief Executive Officer.
I
11. Choice of Law, Jurisdiction. The laws of the state of North Carolina shall govern the validity,
interpretation, construction, and performance of this Agreement, without giving effect to the
principles of conflict of laws.
12. Signatories. GARAA represents and warrants.to each of Charah and DEP that (a) the person or
persons executing this Agreement on behalf of GARAA is duly authorized to execute this.
Agreement and to bind GARAA and its successors and assigns. to the terms, conditions and
obligations hereof. Likewise, each of Charah.and DEP,on its awn behalf and not of behalf of the
other party, represent and warrant to GARAA that (a) the person executing this Agreement on
behalf of Charah and DEP, is duly authorized to'execute this Agreement and to bind Charah and
DEP, and their successors and assigns to the terms, conditions and obligations hereof.
PThe balance of this page intentionally left blank.]
7

r
The parties have executed this Agreement on the respective dates set forth below.
Duke Energy Progress,LLC Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority
By: By: (7,l,�.r
Name: 13lt&g R. w6'?5KAtR— Name: �c��w- s
Title: VP CCP 6Ft*M Title;
Dater 2s f 2(VG Date
Charah,Inc.
By: I'-r—
Name: Charles E.Price
Title: President and CEO
Date: ;z 9—/(
I
i
8 �
1

;
RECT Lvov 0•1 2007
r
COUNTY OF BUNCOMBE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
f A I
This Agreement is made and entered into as of the � day of
'Ale 6?e•.. 4, , 2007,. by and between Charah, Inc. ("CYiarah") ,
and Asheville Regional Airport Authority ("ARAA") , a
d
i
WITNESSETH:
Whereas, Progress Energy Carolinas ("PEC") has an abundant supply
of bottom ash and fly ash (collectively, "Ash")., which is not availa-
ble. from any other source of supply, and PEC needs to remove some of
the Ash from its ash ponds.-
Whereas, Charah is engaged in the business of materials manage-
ment and hauling_,. placement, compaction, stabilization., and securing
of materials, such as Ash;
Whereas, PEC and Charah have -entered into an Ash Reclamation Con-
tract ("Contract") , which was effective as of June 18, 200-7; however,
ARAA is not a party to the Contract and is not bound or affected by
the terms and provisions of the Contract;, and
Whereas, ARAA is agreeable to having the Ash placed upon the
"Project Site,," which 'is located at the Asheville Regional Airport
("Airport",) and is more fully identified in Attachment 1.
i
Now, therefore; the 'parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Charah shall provide all of the Ash needed for the perfor-
mance of this Agreement. Charah shall haul the Ash to the Project
Site and place, compact, and secure the Ash thereon. As .part of this
work, Charah shall be responsible for the installation of all requi-
site "ash bed liners, " and "under-drain systems." The "Operating €
Plan" for .this phase of work, including, but not limited to, prelimi-
nary work items and daily operational items are set forth in Attach-
ment 2. ("Attachment 2 and all of the other Attachments referred to in
this Agreement are incorporated herein by this reference thereto and
are considered a part hereof.)
2. Charah hereby represents to, and covenants with and to, ARAA
that: The Ash is a safe:, benign, inert material, which may be used,
without any present or future limitation, restriction, or prohibition,
-as a structural fill material and/or as a structural landfill materi
al; based on current federal, state and local regulations the Ash
shall not cause. or create .any present or future Limitation,, restric—
t'ion, or prohibition with -respect to 'the use of the Project Site or
te Airport; the Ash shall adequately and safely support the construe-
- �
I
544,6

i
tion and unlimited subsequent use of, for example, aircraft gar-king
areas, aircraft runways, aircraft taxiways, aircraft aprons, large
aircraft hangars, and large buildings (such as a terminal building,: an f
- -.-: _- __ _ - air--traf-fic-.control.-towe-r manufactu-ring- facilities-,- off-ice -buildings.,,-
and hotels) ; based upon current laws; regulations, requirements, and
restrictions the Ash does not and shall not in the future; cause or
create any health or environmental hazard or problem and the Ash does s
not, and shall not in the future, constitute a hazard to, or endanger,
people, wildlife, or plants, cr the atmosphere, air, soil, water, or }
water supply. Charah shall conduct materials testing, including,. but.
not limited to, full metal testing', in order to ensure that, prior to
placement at the Project Site, the Ash meets or exceeds all applicable
and acceptable environmental and safety levels and all applicable re-
quirements and standards, and in order to ensure that the Ash and the
use thereof are in compliance with all applicable environmental and
safety requirements, and standards, and all applicable laws, regula-
tions, requirements and restrictions. Charah shall, forthwith deliver
to ARAA a certified copy of the results of each such test. rFurther1
{more:;dur ng Chgrah's_ per_ ormance--pf-th s greement panel for--a_per od
tof__f re=years-after�Gharah's perfaruzance. hereof, Charah-z-sh or
the outfall__from­ the:_Pro-ect Si-te -for the,- sew-of deters InIng--water
quality_`; in order to ensure that all applicable and acceptable envi_
ronmental levels and all applicable requirements and standards are be.
ing maintained at all. times; Charah shall forthwith deliver to ARAA a I
certified copy of each monitoring report. The certified copies re-
ferred, to in this Paragraph '2 shall not be confidential or privilegeddocuments, and they shall be considered public records. As used in
this paragraph,. Ash includes, but is not limited to, its elements,
components, composition, and anything resulting from the breakdown
and/or decomposition thereof,, and any flowage therefrom.
3. PEC has represented to: Charah and Charah represents to, and
covenants with and to,. ARAA that: PEC and Charah have obtained all
requisite governmental permits, licenses, and permissions relative to
the reuse of coal combustion by-products in the performance of this
Agreement .and all parts hereof; and ARAA is not bound by,, or liable
under or pursuant to, any of, this .permit, license, or permission. The
i
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural. Resources Permit
No. WQ0000020 for the reuse. of coal combustion by-products by Progress
Energy is attached as Attachment 3; and the permit, license, and per-
mission shall remain in full .force and effect during the performance
l
of this Agreement and such additional time periods) as may be re-
quired thereby or by any law, rule, or regulation.
I
i
4. Charah represents to, and covenants with and to, ARAA that it
has the equipment, personnel, experience, and knowledge to timely,
correctly, and safely perform this Agreement.
° 5. ARAA shall pay to Charah only the consideration specified in
Attachment 4. No other compensation or consideration shall be owed or
paid by ARAA to P•EC and/or Charah.
I
2 9446'
3
i
{
1
f

6. All. of the representations and covenants set forth. in, or in-
cdrpotat.ed into, this Agreement shall be perpetual and shall continue
in full force and effect, even after, for example, the performance he-
- .r.eo,f-.by-each- part-y-hereto- -or. the--early- termination_._(.i-f-any)_---of..this_ . . _ _ __:_. ._. _
Agreement (including, but not limited to, the termination 'hereof by
ARAA pursuant to Paragraph 7 below) .
7. ARAA shall have the absolute right, in its sole discretion,
to terminate this Agreement at any time, and for any reason or no rea-
son, and such termination shall become effective thirty days after no-
tice of the termination has been served" by ARAA upon Charah. In the
event of such a termination or a termination pursuant, to Paragraph 14
below, ARAA shall pay Charah for only the work performed up to and in-
cluding the effective date of the termination, and- there shall be no
other payment, whether for loss of future or anticipated profits or
otherwise.
8. The insurance and bonding requirements for Charah are set
forth in Attachment 5.
9. The parties hereto have entered into this Agreement solely-
for their respective benefits, except for any interests which the City
of As:heville, -the County of Buncombe and/or another governmental enti-
ty may now or hereafter have..
10. This Agreement, shall not be construed more strictly against
either of -the parties hereto.
11. This Agreement is made and entered into in the County of
Buncombe, State of North Carolina, and North Carolina laws. shall go-
vern and apply to this Agreement.
12. If any of the terms, provisions, representations, or cove-
nants, or any portion thereof, of this Agreement• shall contravene or
be invalid under the laws or regulations of the State of North Caroli-
na or the United States of America, or 'any of their respective agen-
cies, departments, or subdivisions, such contravention or invalidity
shall not invalidate the whole Agreement, but this Agreement shall be
construed as if not containing the particular term, provision, repre-
sentation, or covenant, or portion thereof, held to be, in contraven-
tion or invalid, and the rights and obligations of the parties hereto
shall be construed accordingly.
13. All notices shall be in wtiting .and shall be deemed properly
served only when mailed to the patty directed at the address or ad-
dresses set forth in Attachment 6. or at such other address or ad-
dresses as may be designated in writing. Service by mail shall be
complete upon deposit of the notice enclosed in a post-paid, properly
addressed wrapper in a post office or official depository under the;
exclusive custody' of the United States Postal Service. The wrapper
shall be sent by certified mail, with a return receipt requested.
3 9446

14. If either party hereto is prohibited or prevented from per-
form
n, ,,ing this Agreement, or any part hereof, due to a failure to ob-
tar , receive, or retain in full force and effect all required li-
E
permits,.__.and_.permis_s_-ions_.from_ the_.appr_op.riate_ .re.g.ulat.or_y___.age.n:-_
ties,. or due to a cause beyond its control, such as -an Act of God, an
order or judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction, or a govern-
mental order or directive, such party may terminate this Agreement by
serving the other party with a notice ten days 'prior to the effective
date of the termination. In addition, this Agreement is subject to
termination at anytime by emergency or security demand or demands of
the United ,States. of America or any of its .agencies, departments, or
subdivisions (including, but not limited to, any of its military
branches,, the Department of Homeland Security, or the Federal Aviation
Administration) .
15. It is the intent of the parties hereto that this Agreement
shall be executed under seal and shall thereby be considered a sealed
document. It is further the intent of the parties ,hereto that this
Agreement shall not be a confidential or privileged document, and it
shall be considered a public record.
16. This Agreement may not be transferred -or assigned by either
of the parties hereto •with. the exception that ARAA may transfer or as-
sign this Agreement to the City of Asheville, the County of Buncombe,
or any other governmental entity.
i
In Witnes's Whereof, this Agreement has been duly executed under seal
and in duplicate (so that each party hereto will have a fully executed
copy hereof) , as of the date first above written.
Attested by: Asheville Regional Airport Author'ty f
L�OI�a ►111 . 1 6- By: I
Title: �} SSy;;'►�t�t- Airport Director
i
i
seal:
Attested by: Charah, Inc.
By-
Title
seal:
i
i
4 9446
i
i
i
t

I
1 ,
e � G
o
❑
°o
I ❑ (� p �^ j
.
i a o
a ooCo
1
y r
L
o
WCD
.
C90
Cj
0
PROJECT` SITE ATTACHMENT 1
ASHEVILLE REGIONAL AIRPORT
a NOT TO SGALE
r

l
ARAA/:Charah Agreement-.Attachment 2
E
f
Operating!Plan for Asheville.Regional Airport-Phase I Structural Fill Operations
Charah shall be.fully,responsible for all areas ofIhe project site,,beginning with
l
Structural Fill Preliminary Construction.through the.Structural Fill'Closure Operations as
referenced yin this Attachment 2
d
Structural Fill Preliminary;Construction:
f
1. At the conclusion of1he clearing and grubbing activities (under separate contract by
ARAA),.Charah will prepare the.fill area for liner installation per the liner subgrade 4
specifications. The site preparation will include grading,the area to drain to the north i
and roller compacting the s'oi(. k
2. Upon completion of all preliminary dirtwork operations and drainage pipe installation,:
Charah will install two specific types of geosynthetic clay liners to'the area to be-
filled. Claymax'200R.or similar'will be applied to areas having little to,no slope while 1
Bentomat CL or similar will be installed on all sloped areas, Joyce Engineering out
of Richmond, Virginia has been contracted by Charah to provide engineering design
and oversight for the liner installation project(liner design and installation details,to
be provided by-Charah)..
3. Charah will upgrade the routes of ingress`and egress within the airport property(at
Charah expense. This.site preparation will include widening,the entrance road in
approximately three places,to allow for trucks to meet on the narrow road along with
potential modifications to the fencing around the south and west sides of the fill
t
areas. The primary entrance gate on Pinner Road may also.be widened;#or
additional safety purposes.All airport roads, fences and,gates shall be°inspected
and the,conditions documented prior to Charah mobilization.. Charah shall-be
responsible for returning ARAA roads, fences and gates to pre-operation state once I
operations.are completed. I
4. Charah will install and maintain all ,erosion and sedimentation control measures per
the approved NCDENR,permits throughout the duration of operations.
Structural Fill Daily Operations:
1. Ash fill will be delivered to the airport site from.the Asheville Power Station.using the
route that with the trucks'leaving the rear entrance of the power plant onto
New Rockwood Road, proceeding to Glenn Bridge Road, crossing under:the
interstate anti turning left onto Pinner Road. The airport propertywill be accessed
from'.Pinner Road.2. Charah will station an employee at the gated entrance to the
airport site f-roi-n Pinners Road to ensure that only project'related traffic is allowed.
entrance into the airport facility:
3. Charah will receive:the dump trucks onto,the fill site.and will`use up to two bulldozers
-and one smooth drum vibratory compactor to place and compact ash in two foot
thick lifts.,

i
4. Compaction testing.will be completed biweekly.,to,ensure compaction of the material
to no less than_95%,of standard,modified proctor. All compaction testing results will
belorwardedto,ARAA.. ARAA reserves the right to conduct_additional testing and/o,r
_.__-validate,-Charah-testing--as deemed necessa -
5. Storm..water will be directed from the fill area into the collection basin(s) as required
per the NCDENR approved erosion and sedimentation plan(NCDENR permit-/•
approval`to be provided by ARM through WK Dickson of Charlotte, NC),
H. All erosion control facilities will be checked daily for proper working order and
immediately upon the,conclusion of any rain event in accordance,with,NQDENR.
approved erosion and sedimentation plan
7i, Charah will conduct dust control operations at the site using a water-truck to
eliminate fugitive dusting.
8. Daily operating hours will:be approximately-7-a.:m.'tb.4r p.m. Monday through Friday
Structural Fill Closure Operations:
1. Upon completion of Phase l activities,,Charah will.oversee or place:and compact j
imported topsoil to provide the structural fill'cap.-at the thickness designed by the l
airport's engineering company,(to be bid by ARAA).
2. The soil cap will be seeded and mulched according to seeding specifications (to be
bid by ARAA):,
b
i
Operators, Communications
a
1. Charah will employ one°site.manager:to.be the primary-point of•.contact for Charah at. '
the airportsite. This:site:managerwill be equipped with a mobile office facility,
mobile telephone, laptop, internet access,.radio and or other communication
equipment as necessary. Three to four additional equipment`operators will be
employed,at the.site for completion of lho�work. 1
2 Charah•will establish a.point,of contact within the.airport:staff,;at the airport's
discretion,that will be made aware daily of Charah's scheduling and presence at the; i
site.-
& With.permission from the airport,,'Charah will utilize a small fuel tank to be placed on-
site in-accordance with site regulations. The tank will be double walled for proper
.containment.
4. Charah to be responsible,for-all other related permits (i.e... building permit,for mobile
office if needed,:and any permits needed for temporary fuel storage, etc.)

Laverty, Brett
From: Michael A. Reisman <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 2:37 PM
To: Laverty, Brett
Cc: Davidson, Landon
Subject: [External] RE: Asheville Airport Area 1 CCP Structural Fill
CAUTION:External email. Do not click links or,open.attachments unless verified.Send all suspicious email as an attachment io
The fence posts should not be penetrating the CCB, but rather remaining within the fill material that lies on top. The
concrete mow strip at the bottom is not structural, and is only four inches thick. Its design is to keep vegetation off the
fence and allow for easier mowing up against the fence, as well as help keep certain animals from burrowing under the
fence. Hope that is what you were looking for.
MR
From: Laverty, Brett<brett.lave [e-mail]>
Sent: Friday,June 15, 20181:41 PM
To: Michael A. Reisman<[e-mail]>
Cc: Davidson, Landon<[e-mail]>
Subject: Asheville Airport Area 1 CCP Structural Fill
Mike,
I am reviewing Duke Energy's grading plan for Area 1. Can you provide me with some specs on the security fence? How
far do the wooden support posts and concrete footer penetrate into the structural fill?Thank you for your time.
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
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.
1

Laverty, Brett
From: Laverty, Brett
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 10:18 AM
To: 'Toepfer, John R'
Cc: Pickett, Matt; Nordgren, Scott R.; Weisker, Brian R; Hill, Tim S.; Sullivan, Ed M; Czop, Ryan;
McNash, James-geosyntec; Damasceno, Victor-Geosyntec; Michael A. Reisman
([e-mail]); John Coon ([e-mail])
Subject: RE: [External]Asheville Airport Area I - Response to DEQ April 30, 2018 Letter Report
John,
At the technical meeting, Brian Weisker had asked whether DWR would be open to a parallel track of continued
investigation and CCP fill cap replacement. Both Landon Davidson and I agreed that DWR would be open to replacing the
cap while'continuing to investigate a possible groundwater connection. It was my impression from the technical meeting
that replacement of the cap was a top priority for Duke Energy.
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(@-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:Toepfer,John R [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent:Wednesday,June 13,2018 9:56 AM
To: Laverty, Brett<[e-mail]>
.Cc: Pickett, Matt<[e-mail]>; Nordgren,Scott R.<[e-mail]>; Weisker,
Brian R<[e-mail]>; Hill,Tim S.<Tim.Hill @duke-energy.com>;Sullivan, Ed M
<[e-mail]>;Czop, Ryan<[e-mail]>; McNash,James-geosyntec
<[e-mail]>; Damasceno,Victor-Geosyntec<[e-mail]>; Michael A. Reisman
([e-mail])<[e-mail]>;John Coon ([e-mail])<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] Asheville Airport Area I - Response to DEQ April 30, 2018 Letter Report
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified.Send all suspicious email as an attachment to

Brett—the submittal last Friday included a grading plan for drainage improvements to area 1 (temporary
improvements). It is our understanding from the May 14 meeting that until the necessary additional investigation work
is completed (also part of last Friday's submittal), it is premature to provide a more permanent solution. If this
understanding is not correct, please let me know. 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
From: Laverty, Brett [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 8:55 AM
To: Toepfer, John R; Davidson, Landon
Cc: Frost, Larry; Michael A. Reisman (mreismam'Mavl.com); John Coon ([e-mail]); Weisker, Brian R; Hill,Tim
S.; Nordgren, Scott R.; Pickett, Matt; Karably, Ken; Culbert, Erin; Kafka, Michael T.; Hanchey, Matthew F.; Hart, Randy;
Struble, Steven I; Summerville, Allison Y.; Sullivan, Ed M; Wells, James; Czop, Ryan; Pruett, Jeremy J.; Williams,Teresa
Lynne; Whisnant, Garry A; Walls,Jason A; Woodward,Tina; Cranford, Chuck; McNash, James -geosyntec; Damasceno,
Victor-Geosyntec; tplatingO synterracorp.com
Subject: RE: [External] Asheville Airport Area I - Response to DEQ April 30, 2018 Letter Report
Exercise caution. This is an EXTERNAL email. DO NOT open
attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected
email. *�`*
John,
Is there a soil cap design proposal forthcoming for Area 1? If so,when do you expect to release the design proposal?
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
-5:::`-`'Nothing Cornpares__�,_•_.
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:Toepfer,John R [mailto:John.Toepfer@dul<e-energy.com]
Sent: Friday,June 08, 2018 2:03 PM
To: Davidson, Landon<[e-mail]>; Laverty, Brett<brett.lave [e-mail]>
Cc: Frost, Larry<[e-mail]>; Michael A. Reisman ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>;John
Coon ([e-mail])<[e-mail]>;Weisker, Brian R<[e-mail]>; Hill,Tim S.
<[e-mail]>; Nordgren,Scott R. <[e-mail]>; Pickett, Matt
<[e-mail]>; Karably, Ken<[e-mail]>; Culbert, Erin<Erin.Culbert@duke-
energy.com>; Kafka, Michael T.<Michael,[e-mail]>; Hanchey, Matthew F. <Matthew.Hanchey@duke-
energy.com>; Hart, Randy<[e-mail]>;Struble,Steven I <[e-mail]>;
Summerville,Allison Y. <[e-mail]>; Sullivan, Ed M <[e-mail]>;
Wells,James<[e-mail]>; Czop, Ryan<[e-mail]>; Pruett,Jeremy J.
<[e-mail]>; Williams,Teresa Lynne<[e-mail]>;Whisnant, Garry A
<[e-mail]>; Walls,Jason A<[e-mail]>;Woodward,Tina
<[e-mail]>; Cranford, Chuck<[e-mail]>; McNash,James-
geosyntec<[e-mail]>; Damasceno,Victor-Geosyntec<[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]
Subject: [External] Asheville Airport Area I - Response to DEQ April 30, 2018 Letter Report
CAUTION: •. not click links or open attachments unless verified.Send all suspicious email as an attachment to and Brett—attached is the response from Duke Energy and Asheville Airport regarding DEQ's April 30, 2018
letter report titled "Review of 90-Day Report Submittal and Required Interim Measures". Also attached is the finalized
camera inspection report of the underground reinforced concrete pipes at Area I fill (item #13 of your April 30 letter
report). I understand you have the video and a draft report received via a separate submittal. Please let me know of
questions on the attached.
cc line—please file accordingly, no hard copies will be sent.
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
3

Laverty, Brett
From: Toepfer, John R <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2018 2:03 PM
To: Davidson, Landon; Laverty, Brett
Cc: Frost, Larry; Michael A. Reisman ([e-mail]); John Coon ([e-mail]);
Weisker, Brian R; Hill, Tim S.; Nordgren, Scott R.; Pickett, Matt; Karably, Ken; Culbert, Erin;
Kafka, Michael T.; Hanchey, Matthew F.; Hart, Randy; Struble, Steven I; Summerville, Allison
Y.; Sullivan, Ed M; Wells, James; Czop, Ryan; Pruett, Jeremy J.; Williams, Teresa Lynne;
Whisnant, Garry A; Walls, Jason A; Woodward, Tina; Cranford, Chuck; McNash, James-
geosyntec; Damasceno, Victor-Geosyntec; [e-mail]
Subject: [External]Asheville Airport Area I - Response to DEQ April 30, 2018 Letter Report
Attachments: Duke Response to DEQ on Asheville Airport Area I -June 2018.pdf; Asheville Airport 2018
Pipe Video Assessment SEALED.pdf
i • P• • • ••- -• • • • •
Landon and Brett—attached is the response from Duke Energy and Asheville Airport regarding DEQ's April 30, 2018
letter report titled "Review of 90-Day Report Submittal and Required Interim Measures". Also attached is the finalized
camera inspection report of the underground reinforced concrete pipes at Area I fill (item#13 of your April 30 letter
report). I understand you have the video and a draft report received via a separate submittal. Please let me know of
questions on the attached.
cc line—please file accordingly, no hard copies will be sent.
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
i

410 S.Wilmington Street.
�4 DUKE., RaleighNC 27601 '
V. EhIEkGY® Mailing Address
Mail Cdde NC 45
Raleigh,-NC27601
919-546-7663
June 8,,2018
North Carolina.Department of Environmental Quality
Attn: Mr. Landon Davidson
2090 U.S.70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778
RE: Response to DEQ's April 30,2018 Review of the 90-Day Report, Asheville Airport Area I Structural
Fill, Buncombe,County, North Carolina
Dear Mr.,Davidson:
Duke Energy 'Progress, LLC. (DEP.) and the Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority submit the
enclosed to address the Department of Environmental Quality's(DEQ) above-referenced-response_,dated
April 30, 2018. The enclosed also took into account information obtained during a meeting at the
Asheville Regional Office on May 14, 2018 in which your response;was discussed in greater detail.
If you have ,any questions or need any clarification regarding the information`provided, feel free to
contact me'at [e-mail] or at 919-546-7863 at your convenience.
Respec II�ubmitte",
Joh oepfer,,P.E.
Lead Engineer, Duke Energy EHS CCP
Waste& Groundwater Programs
Enc: Geosyntec Consultants of NC, PC Response to NCDEQ 90-Day Report Submittal Review
Comments and Required Corrective Actions
2018 Annual CCTV Inspection Video Assessment .
cc/enc(via e-mail): Mr. Ed Sullivan- Duke Energy
Mr. Michael_Reisman—Asheville Airport
Mr.Scott Nordgren—Duke Energy
Mr. Matt Pickett—Duke Energy
Mr.James McNash-Geosyntec

Geosyntee Consultants of NC,PC
Geos1300 South Mint Street,Suite 300
ynte& Charlotte,NC 28203
PH 704.227.0840
consultants
w"w.geosyntec.com
08 June 2018
Mr. John R. Toepfer, P.E.
Lead Engineer
Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
410 S. Wilmington St./NC15
Raleigh,North Carolina 27601
Subject: Response to NCDEQ 90-Day Report Submittal Review Comments and Required
Corrective Actions
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 (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 and requested a work plan and
timeline for additional corrective actions to be submitted by 31 May 2018. Duke Energy requested
an extension to 8 June 2018, for which NCDEQ granted via email on 29 May 2018,to allow ARA
authority to review the work plan and timeline. The purpose of this letter is to respond to the
interim actions, clarifications, and corrective actions requested by NCDEQ.
RESPONSE TO INTERIM MEASURES OR CLARIFICATION REQUESTS
The paragraphs below provide each NCDEQ request for clarification or comment in italic font
followed by the corresponding response in normal font.
Required Interim Measures
The interim measures provided below must be completed before the close of business on 8 June
2018:
1. Submit a temporary stabilization plan and timeline based on the recommendations contained in
the Engineering Analysis Report.
GC6463/ARA_Area_I NCDEQ_Response
engineers I Scientists I hmovators,

Mr. John R. Toepfer, P.E.
08 June 2018
Page 2
Response: A temporary stabilization plan was prepared and is provided in Appendix A of this
letter. The temporary stabilization plan is planned for completion by 31 October 2018. However,
this timeline is dependent on receipt of an Erosion and Sediment Control(E&SC)Plan permit from
NCDEQ Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources (DEMLR), which is required prior to
land disturbance activities. The E&SC Plan permit application will be provided to ARO for
reference upon submittal to DEMLR.
2. Review the existing stormwater drainage along the crown of the east cell and submit a plan to
divert this runoff away from the fill slope.
Response: The existing stormwater drainage along the crown of the east cell was reviewed. A
stormwater grading plan was prepared and is provided as a part of the temporary stabilization plan
in Appendix A of this letter.
3. Evaluate short-term engineering measures to ensure slope stability including, but not limited
to, lowering of the phreatic surface to reduce the internal pore water pressure (e.g., dewatering).
Response: The slope stability of Area lwas evaluated and is discussed in Sections 5 and 6 of the
90-day Submittal. Stability analysis included: (i) veneer stability; (ii) global failure; and (iii)base
sliding, accounting for seepage face and phreatic surface conditions; as well as liquefaction
potential evaluation(Section 6 of the 90-day Submittal).
Short-term engineering measures were implemented after the 7 September 2017 inspection by
Duke Energy. Specifically, Duke Energy designed and constructed a temporary stabilization
measure consisting of, from bottom to top: geotextile, fine sand, and riprap, comprising a
temporary buttress system. The temporary buttress system (i) increases resisting forces near the
toe of the slope, improving stability, and(ii) filters seepage along the toe, allowing pore pressures
to dissipate while reducing potential for piping and material loss (e.g., erosion). The temporary
buttress system was visually inspected and appeared to be stable after initial settlements post-
construction. Routine slope observation, which includes monitoring of. (i) slope pins; (ii)
piezometers; (iii) an inclinometer; and (iv) visual slope inspection, are also performed to further
assess stability of the slope and will continue on a monthly frequency.
4. Continue slope stability monitoring as outlined in item 7 of the corrective action response.
Response: Routine slope monitoring and slope inspection will continue as outlined within the
response to Correction Action 7 (see below).
Clarification 1: You are required to provide an explanation of the apparent discrepancy between
the modeled factor of safety of 1.8 and the past instability evidenced by this scarp. Please address
the conditions that led to the formation of the scarp that are not accountedfor in the slope stability
analysis.
GC6463/ARA Area 1_NCDEQ_Response
engineers, I scientists I innovators

Mr. John R. Toepfer, P.E.
08 June 2018
Page 3
Response: The soil cover was not designed with an internal drainage layer; therefore, the soil
cover may retain excess surface water from the Area 1 top deck, which may saturate localized
slope areas. Localized sloughing in some areas cannot be predicted due to heterogeneity of the
cover. The analysis presented within the 90-day submittal computes the factor of safety for slope
stability of the slope and considers the available data from historical documents and recent
observations. Furthermore, localized and transient conditions within the soil cover are not
typically modeled within a limit-equilibrium slope stability analysis as these scarps are typically
addressed during routine maintenance activities.
Clarification 2: As stated in the report, the SLIDETM software used in the stability analysis can
identify `critical slip surfaces' with the lowest factors of safety. Although it is implied that the
analyzed slip surface presented in Figure 7-18 are `critical slip surfaces, 'please clarify if this is
the case.
Response: The SLIDETM program evaluates numerous potential slip surfaces within cross section
analysis limits. To clearly present the results, only select slip surfaces are presented in the
calculation package results. The green slip surface provided in a slope stability result is the critical
slip surface and have the lowest computed factor of safety for the analyzed cross section based on
the slip surface search limits. To evaluate individual failure mechanisms (i.e.,global,veneer,etc.),
search limits were specified to force evaluated slip surfaces along an evaluated interface (i.e.,
GCL/CCR interface or veneer) or within a critical zone. The black slip surfaces are representative
of conditions evaluated and were queried from all evaluated slip surfaces to present the factor of
safety for a particular condition. For example, in Figure 13, a slip surface which extends from the
top of the slope was presented to demonstrate that the factor of safety met or exceeded a 1.5
threshold, however, a lower factor of safety was computed for the critical failure surface near the
toe of the slope, representing the type of sloughing observed in the field.
Clarification 3: What GCL geometry relative to the toe berm is used for the stability analyses?
The GCL interface geometry is uncertain in this area on Figures 4-18 stability analysis cross
sections. Is it correct to assume that the GCL is between the CCP and the 2H.•I V interior slope of
the toe berm, and anchored with a toe trench?
Response: The geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) does not impact global and veneer stability;
therefore, the GCL layer was not included in these analyses. However, the GCL was modeled in
the base sliding stability analyses to assess the factor of safety for sliding along GCL/CCR
interface, which may represent a weak sliding plane. As-built and design documents were limited
at the time of this evaluation. The as-built drawings prepared by Vaughn Engineering [2009] on
behalf of Charah, Inc. did not depict the configuration of the GCL at the toe berm or the presence
of an anchor trench. As such, the GCL was modeled along the structural fill/subsurface interface
and excluded from the interior 2H:1V slope. Evidence of base sliding along the GCL/CCR
GC6463/ARA_Area_1_NCDEQResponse
engineers I scientists] innovators

Mr. John R. Toepfer, P.E.
08 June 2018
Page 4
interface such as tension cracks or tilt change in inclinometer data was not observed during site
visits.
Clarification 4: You are required to provide an explanation as to whether the RCP, surrounding
fill and drainage aggregate system was constructed to serve as an adequate underdrain over the
long term, rather than just a conveyance for surface water runoff? What is the potential for
clogging of the drainage aggregate surrounding the RCP?
Response: Available design and construction documents do not identify whether the 60-inch
diameter RCP and aggregate base was designed to serve as an underdrain system. Available
documents indicate that the 60-inch diameter RCP was designed to re-route surface water and the
historical stream channel from the existing concrete junction box at the south Area 1 fill boundary.-
Specifications or conformance tests on the surrounding fill and drainage aggregate system are not
available;therefore,Geosyntec cannot evaluate the potential for clogging of the drainage aggregate
which surrounds the RCP.
CORRECTIVE ACTION WORK PLAN
Within the 30 April 2018 90-day Submittal review letter, NCDEQ requires Duke Energy and the
ARA Authority to provide a brief work plan and timeline to complete several corrective actions.
The following sections identify the required corrective action and the proposed schedule to
complete the work plan.
Corrective Actions
The following sections identify the required corrective action in italics; while, the work plan and
estimated implementation timeline,is provided in normal font. The estimated timeline may be
revised dependent on NCDEQ input,permit approvals, and ARA Authority site access availability.
Corrective Action 1:
Hydrogeologic conceptual model development — The DWR is requiring the development of a
hydrogeologic conceptual model for the CCP fill. The model should include, but is not limited to,
the following framework components: RCP corridor, the phreatic surface, piezometric surface,
potentiometric surface, the GCL, engineered base below GCL, the adjacent stream valley, area
north of the CCP fill, alluvium, residuum, saprolite, transition zone, and fractured bedrock.
Response: A conceptual hydrogeologic model will be developed based on available data and data
collected during Corrective Actions 2 through 4(see below). The conceptual hydrogeologic model
will consider the RCP soil corridor,phreatic and piezometric surfaces, GCL, and foundation soils.
To facilitate remedial design schedule, the conceptual hydrogeologic model will consider
historical groundwater elevation measurements and up to three months of groundwater elevation
GC6463/ARA_Area_1 NCDEQ_Response
engineers I scientists I innovators

Mr. John R. Toepfer, P.E.
08 June 2018
Page 5
measurements in piezometers and monitoring wells installed as a part of these corrective actions.
Historical, existing, and proposed monitoring well and piezometer locations proposed to support
the conceptual hydrogeological model are provided on Figure 1. Historical rainfall and
groundwater elevation data for ARA will be reviewed and evaluated to prepare the conceptual
hydrogeologic model, that will be presented in a Conceptual Hydrogeologic Model Report, to be
prepared by 21 December 2018.
Corrective Action 2:
Piezometric surface investigation- The DWR is requiring confirmation of the extent and elevation
of the piezometric surface beneath the GCL, and address the impacts that it has on the following:
a) The sources and extent of phreatic groundwater above the GCL (i.e., a leaking GCL);
b) Slope stability (i.e., wetland complex/groundwater discharge area near east cell);
c) The long-term performance of the RCP and the earthen fill around it;
d) The discharge of CCP leachate; and
e) The mixing of groundwater above and below the GCL.
Response: To evaluate groundwater and phreatic conditions beneath and above the GCL, two t-
in. diameter piezometers are proposed to be installed adjacent to PZ-2 and PZ-3 in accordance
with well installation permit WM0100425 and 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC)
02C.0100. The two piezometers adjacent to PZ-2 and PZ-3 are proposed to be screened above and
below the GCL base liner,respectively,to comprise a well cluster to evaluate whether the phreatic
surface within Area 1 is connected to the underlying groundwater surface. The proposed
piezometer locations are provided on Figure 1. Piezometer installation, development, and GW-1
form submittal are proposed to be completed by 21 September 2018.
The conceptual hydrogeologic model and report will provide information that pertains to items(a),
(c), (d), and (e) of Corrective Action 2. Item (b) will be addressed as a part of the updated slope
stability sensitivity study described in Corrective Action 9.
Corrective Action 3:
Monitoring well installation - The DWR is requiring the installation of two groundwater
monitoring wells on the east review boundary and one monitoring well on the north review
boundary near the CCP leachate discharge (SW8 AI). You are required to coordinate the location
of these monitoring wells with the DWR regional office.
GC6463/ARA Area 1 NCDEQ_Response
engineers I scientists I innovators

Mr. John R. Toepfer, P.E.
08 June 2018
Page 6
Response: Three monitoring wells will be installed in accordance with well installation permit
WM0100425 and the 15A NCAC 02C.0100 by 21 September 2018. Proposed monitoring well
locations and screened intervals are shown on Figure 2. Well installation(GW-1) forms will also
be submitted to NCDEQ DWR by 21 September 2018.
Corrective Action 4:
Piezometric and phreatic surface monitoring- The DWR is requiring the placement of continuous
water level transducers at piezometers PZ-2, PZ-3, PZ-4, and PZ-5. Hourly water level data will
need to be paired with hourly rainfall data from the gauge at the Airport. The water level data will
need to be corrected for barometric pressure and reported monthly to the ARO in the form of an
electronic spreadsheet. The DWR would like to discuss the installation of additional piezometers
in the fill to further assess the piezometric andphreatic surfaces. Utilization of other technologies
(e.g., geophysics) should be evaluated.
Response: Transducers with dataloggers will be installed within PZ-2, PZ-3, PZ-4, and PZ-5 to
record the piezometric and phreatic surfaces continuously over a period of four months. The
collected data will be paired with hourly rainfall data and submitted to ARO for review.
Transducers will be installed by 01 August 2018 and data will be submitted monthly to ARO for
review. Installation of additional piezometers is described in the Corrective Action 2 response.
Geosyntec reviewed the use of Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) as a geophysical
technique to assess phreatic conditions within the structural fill. However, Geosyntec is concerned
that pore water within the fill and CCR will not provide sufficient electrical resistivity contrast to
generate a resistivity map that can properly/definitively delineate the water elevation within the
structural fill. Therefore, the methodology will not be pursued for this application.
Corrective Action 5:
Saturated hydraulic conductivity investigation-The D WR is requiring an evaluation of the existing
KsAT for the CCP fill soil cap (east and west cells) and the RCP corridor soil cap.
Response: Four Shelby tubes will be advanced to collect undisturbed soil cover samples to
evaluate the in-situ hydraulic conductivity of the soil cover. Since access on the north Area 1 slope
with a drill rig is considered tenuous, undisturbed samples will be limited to four locations on the
Area 1 top deck. Samples collected will be tested by an offsite geotechnical laboratory by ASTM
D5084 and the results will be summarized within the conceptual hydrogeologic model report. This
task can be completed by 21 September 2018.
GC6463/ARA Area_1_NCDEQ_Response
engineers I sclentists I innovators

Mr. John R. Toepfer, P.E.
08 June 2018
Page 7
Corrective Action 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.
Response: Based on discussions with ARO, Geosyntec understands that the requested GCL
evaluation consists of a desktop study, identification of the installed GCL product, and brief
literature review to describe the anticipated performance of the GCL under current conditions.
Duke Energy will request construction information from Charah and ARA Authority to identify
the installed product and complete the desktop study by 21 October 2018. The GCL study will be
attached as a part of the Conceptually Hydrogeologic Model Report.
Corrective Action 7:
Slope stability monitoring— The DWR is requiring continued monthly slope stability monitoring
which includes the following:
a) Slope monitoring pins: monthly frequency in the existing array unless observations and/or
monitoring data indicate changes in the movement locations and/or accelerated rates. Please
report pin locations as surveyed,pin movement greater than 0.2 feet, and qualify the survey error.
b) Please increase the pin displacement reporting tolerance to 0.2-ft.per the recommendation in
the Engineering Analysis Report.
c) Inclinometer: monthly frequency unless observations and/or monitoring data indicate changes
in the movement locations and/or accelerated rates. Please report tilt change (incremental
displacement),profile change (cumulative displacement), and findings of any systematic errors in
inclinometer data (e.g., those identified from diagnostic plots).
d) Visual slope inspections at monthly intervals unless observations and/or monitoring data
indicate changes in the movement locations and/or accelerated rates.
e) Piezometers: monthly depth to water readings paired with daily rainfall rates from the rain
gauge at the Asheville Airport.
fi Mapping of any new slope movement features, groundwater discharge features (e.g., springs,
seeps, upwellings), and CCP exposure or discharge areas.
g)A quarterly monitoring report bearing the seal of a North Carolina licensed engineer is required
to be sent to the ARO for review at the end of each quarter.
Response: Slope pin, piezometer, and inclinometer monitoring and routine inspection activities
identified in Items (a) through (f) will continue on a monthly frequency for Area 1. Geosyntec
GC6463/ARA_Area 1 NCDEQ_Response
engineers I scientists I innovators

Mr. John R. Toepfer, P.E.
08 June 2018
Page 8
will prepare a quarterly monitoring report on behalf of Duke Energy and the ARA Authority for
ARO review. The first quarterly monitoring report will be provided by 21 September 2018 to
summarize available data through Q2.
Corrective Action 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 backfill 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 CCP friction angles (0).
Response: Slope stability analysis and sensitivity study will be performed to evaluate the factor
of safety of a critical cross section through the RCP corridor. Sensitivity analyses will evaluate
the influence of: (i) phreatic condition variation; (ii) seepage face development; and (iii) material
shear strength. These analyses will be documented within the revised slope stability study by 21
October 2018.
Corrective Action 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.
Response: The slope stability sensitivity study (Corrective Action 8) will be expanded to include
Cross Sections A, B, and C and a range of shear strengths, and pore pressures. Dynamic
liquefaction potential was presented in the 90-day submittal and will not be submitted as part of
the slope stability sensitivity study. The updated sensitivity study will be completed by 21 October
2018.
Corrective Actions 10, 11, 12, and 13:
10. Surface water monitoring— The DWR is requiring quarterly surface water monitoring at the
following sites: SW2-AI, SW3-A1, SW4b-Al, SWS A1, SW6 A1, SW8 A1, SW9 A1, and SW12-Al.
Samples should include both total and dissolved samples and be analyzed for CCP constituents.
When practical, sampling should be conducted at base flow conditions to the maximum extent
possible and at least S days after a rain event of any magnitude.
11. Assessment of surface water— The DWR is requiring a one-time monitoring event of select
surface water sites to determine violations of 2B surface water standards using the criteria for
hardness-dependent freshwater metals outlined in 1 SA NCAC 02B .0211 (11). Monitoring sites
will include SW3 A1, SW4b-AI, SWS A1, SW8 A1, SW9-Al, and SW12 A1. Samples should be
GC6463/ARA Area 1 NCDEQ_Response
engineers.I scientists-I innovators

Mr. John R. Toepfer, P.E.
08 June 2018
Page 9
analyzed for CCP constituents. When practical, sampling should be conducted at base flow
conditions to the maximum extent possible and at least S days after a rain event of any magnitude.
12. Analytical results—DWR is requiring Duke to provide a copy of the analytical results from a
November 29, 2017 surface water investigation on the north-side of the CCP fill.
13. Camera inspection -DWR is requiring Duke to provide a copy of the 2018 camera inspection
of the RCP (60-in.) underneath the CCP fill. Please also include an engineering evaluation of the
findings of the survey.
Response: Response or information that pertains to Corrective Actions 10 and 1 lwill be provided
by Duke Energy and ARA Authority under separate cover. Duke Energy re-submitted to ARO the
analytical results requested by Corrective Action 12 on 15 May 2018. Duke Energy also provided
ARO the camera inspection and a summary report requested by Corrective Action 13 on 17 May
2018 and 8 June 2018, respectively.
Proposed Schedule for Corrective Action
The corrective action work plan was discussed briefly in the above section. The timeline summary
table to accomplish the corrective action work plan is provided as follows:
Corrective Proposed Schedule for
Action No. Corrective Action Measure Description
Completion
• Installation of transducers in PZ-2 through
No. 4 PZ-5 piezometers O1 August 2018
• Piezometer installation, development, and
GW-1 Forms
• Monitoring well installation and GW-1
Nos. 2, 3, Forms
5, 6, and 7 '
Saturated hydraulic conductivity 21 September 2018
investigation
• GCL evaluation
• First quarterly monitoring report
Nos. 7, 8, • Slope stability analysis and sensitivity 21 October 2018
& 9 study
• Hydrogeologic conceptual model
No. 1 development 21 December 2018
GC6463/ARA Area_1_NCDEQ_Response
engineers l scientists l innovators

Mr. John R. Toepfer, P.E.
08 June 2018
Page 10
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,
es DE Mcash, P.E.(NC)
iNerroject n V Damasce o, Ph.D., .E. (NC,FL)
Princ al Engineer
GC6463/ARA Areal NCDEQ_Response
enggIne rs;1's le ft s s I nnovators;

FIGURE

N
^A�
t.
� e
,I•rx l iI .. ,q
o
'r
�y
A
SAS i
a
rh
Legend
Q5 Existing Piezometer
Proposed Piezometer
-�i Existing Monitoring Well
1' Proposed Monitoring Well
® Temporary Stabilization Measure
100 50 0 100 200 Feet
0 Parcel Boundary RM
Area 1 Stormwater Network PROPOSED PIEZOMETERS
i
AND MONITORING WELLS
Notes:
1.Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe,GeoEye, Asheville Regional Airport
Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS,USDA,USGS, Asheville, North Carolina
AeroGRID,IGN,and the GIS User Community.
2. Field investigation locations were surveyed by McKim&Creed
on 29 November2017. GeosMte& 4*�DUKE Figure
3.Parcel boundaries obtained from Buncombe County GIS website ENERGY®
on 20 December 2017. consultants
4.The locations of monitoring wells are approximate and will be I
adjusted in concurrence with NCDWR. CHARLOTTE,NC JUNE 2018

Geosyntec Consultants of NC,PC
Geosyriteccl 1300 South Mint Street,Suite 30
Charlotte,NC 28203
PH 704.227.0840
ConWtantS www.geosyntec.com
08 June 2018
Mr. John R. Toepfer, P.E.
Lead Engineer
Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
410 S. Wilmington St. /NC15
Raleigh,North Carolina 27601
Subject: Letter Report-Temporary Stabilization Plan
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 Temporary Stabilization
Plan (Plan) for 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's (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 and required a temporary stabilization plan to be submitted by 31 May 2018 as an
interim measure. Duke Energy requested an extension for this temporary stabilization plan to 8
June 2018, for which NCDEQ granted via email on 29 May 2018, to allow ARA authority to
review the work plan and timeline. The purpose of this Platt is to present existing temporary
stabilization measures and discuss the path forward.
During routine inspection activities at ARA on 7 September 2017 Duke Energy identified wet
areas and a soil cover slough with an isolated seep that contained coal combustion residuals
(CCR) at the north base of the Area 1 east cell. Duke Energy designed and constructed a
temporary stabilization measure consisting of, from bottom to top: a geotextile, fine sand, and a
riprap buttress system. The temporary riprap buttress was inspected routinely and appeared to be
stable after initial post-construction settlements. Routine slope monitoring which includes: (i)
monitoring of slope pins, (ii)piezometers, and (iii) an inclinometer, and (iv) slope inspection will
continue monthly. If further temporary stabilization is deemed necessary, additional riprap may
be placed to buttress the base of the slope.
GC6463/ARA_Area_1_Temporary Stabilization Plan
engineers I scientists I innovators;

Mr. John R. Toepfer, P.E.
31 Mav 2018
Page 2
As stated in the 90-day Submittal, phreatic surface modification within Area 1 will improve
calculated factors of safety and improve overall slope stability. Duke Energy proposes surface
water drainage improvements to facilitate runoff from the Area 1 top deck, prevent surface
erosion of the north slope soil cover, and reduce infiltration into the structural fill. The proposed
surface water drainage improvements also include modifications to the existing security fence
concrete footer to limit surface water accumulation and infiltration along the security fence line.
The surface water drainage improvements are intended to promote lowering of the phreatic
conditions by reducing infiltration into Area 1. The proposed surface water drainage
improvement design is provided within the grading plan attached herein as Attachment A.
Geosyntec appreciates the opportunity to provide this Temporarily Stabilization Plan. If Duke
Energy has any questions with regards to this Temporary Stabilization Plan, please contact the
undersigned at 704-227-0840.
Sincerely,
J es D.�McNash, P.E. (NC)
Project Engineer
1 amasc o, P , .(NC,FL)
Pri al Engineer
GC6463/ARA Area_1_Temporary Stabilization Plan
engineers,j sp'lehifsts :l innovators:;

ATTACHMENT A

2 I < 1 3 4 5 1 •1 6 I' 7 8
DESIGN DRAWINGS
AREA 1 EAST CELL STORM WATER GRADING . PLAN
A A
ASHEVILLE REGIONAL AIRPORT
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT NO. GC6463
JUNE 2018
6r �Tzuu7� B
WING DRA LIST -.
NUMBER TITLE ` � � t
N
1 TITLE SHEET
T Sorer ;1B r a $ rnsdtto ,.
2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
a
�etDkee - •
1 fat Dn f s s 3 GRADING AND EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANe9 YL a{I a G
nrye�44+•at Fare> i`_, .Mn,yantnr,..:-,.--. _ `.... 1 - � v
y telcter 4 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS I "`D
N L i•-. A_dTei sJeya -�„ 5 EROSION AND CONTROL DETAILS II
r
SIT �
'e�atlt .Avas •,. nc7. -'` - x ` r�C e'd �0 4; cleefrof "_Lw e k
•SITE PSt j r'ipd012. F r'�• _
otrya P D
- Frm`1k1D �
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
C
'�, � :f` �,HI,�1 lar,�4.., .. ,T ,;�aal:ne• •� :a,,-1 - „e '� 4 � B km
x >a
s� /• Spanenbuig
t_I '•3�w, t.. lep f�F Srepnyiflr:1
.,a.�Tac csiax,c; °r.ft:YIe.s.i«rnx,® }
3 n1Y
zoac r2 ® 8 HEE �.t"P9 '• /'' m,i�,�,c ,pwr,r bnx:c.
SOURCE MICROSOFT,BING MAPS SOURCE:MICROSOFT,BING MAPS
VICINITY MAP LOCATION MAP
SCALE:T'=20 MILES SCALE:1"=2 MILES
D D
E E
g PREPARED FOR:
8 REV DATE pp DESCRIPTION DRN �AIP
{ DUKE DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC �:DETAILNUMBER Geosyntec® � DUKE
3 C —DRAWING ON WHICH
ABOVE ,30o SDuiHconsult consultants OF NO,PC
Ef�IERGY 400 SOUTH TRYON STREET ENERGY
° CHARLOTTE, NC 28202 USA C CJCENSE NO.: B40
DETAIL NUMBER NC PHONE
EN 71. OW5 PROGRESS
TITLE'
PROGRESS DRAWINGONWMICH 4 DETAIL I TITLE SHEET
ABOVE DETAIL WAS C PRo i cT:
FIRST REFERENCED 3 TITLE OF DETAIL
0 SCALEI"=2 DESIGN DRAWINGS
AREA 1 EAST CELL STORM WATER GRADING PLAN
EXAMPLE: DETAIL NUMBER 4 PRESENTEDNCE SITE: ASHEVILLE REGIONAL AIRPORT
s PREPARED BY: 1300 SOUTH MINT STREET SUITE 300 THEFRSr ME ON DRAWING NO.
FOR
F 1 ASHEVILLE,NORTH CAROLINA F
Geos tec'- CHARLOTTE, NC 28203 USA ABOVE SYSTEM ALSO APPLIES TO SECTION IDENTIFICATIONS. / DESGN BY KRF DATE: JUNE2018
PHONE: [phone] `_`"DAR°
g DETAIL IDENTIFICATION LEGEND ,,, e••'•••. DRAWN BY: JWO PROJECT NO, GC6463
Tp
(� L OOPESSro,•�,�
�9 consultants of NC P.C. ,�axal AtcA4tSG. _ 2 JDM FILE GC6473.O6DO10
oG I ""n'� 1•:!DIE '• REVIEWED BY: VMD DRAWING NO.:
R
r DESIGN DRAWINGS-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION `nIIIiL1," ``
8 June 20I8
APPROVED BY: JDM OF5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

J
x /
•V` � 5 ! /
1 % -�� 21 V I �I _�(� .w .8 % �� `-'v I I w 1 I i����� II I / N A •.:1. PRDPERTY BoonRv i.F�
f1 2 t /' I11' - AREA 7 LOCATION
A A
'1I�I1as.6 ` �� � 1 3��, o0 9L / � \I ',II'I ' `111 ,'lll,l'(. � 0 100' zoo• � � III''' ( ;1 ,2�� - '�,; ''..�.
47,D I I 2 4`` 4 �I,1, / ` �� �' A,�., K_$ m
21 e\ \r SCALE IN FEET 'b, —— � `3�- k.. Y•.
Oki,
1.. AI \ ,1II!1_ �- �.•',; \ 77i
63700 1 I �� 1 ._r• * VANNN Y�,S , - •. 1
-\ s "I;
x h •.- f
,� + ��I � �\' 2t2� •� � � 1��1 � it l� .�II �A `--� � tr".r �;� �
it / \,J �135. �/�i/�� ry^ �� a91_ �• L � � ('�96. � PROPERTY BOUNDARY � V � 1 I '�''Ip S� a �P� �t •V � �� t
6 1\II I /l �°�-` ��- ��� IlQillll ���� LI\—\\ (NOTE 4) v}} / VV � \I I h ✓ �• 1'�`3 1(,+ -.._ B
J .1 1 3 OIL '�+
�• �� -� 37.7 ( - � � I � - � / � 1 � � S � I ��.r i. Iln��
P'\\ v� � �So � � I �llA�� _�os� �� II �1 1 1 v�� �-1 � \ 1— � ��\;' �----� z , '�� �1�f��: �•.�r
t ' t\'� ' /,/� O� 1 '' I M'W"t �__•,;,J I \ 1 ` \` \�\ SOURCE:MICROSOFT,BING MAPS KEY MAP
•\,`\:',.'`l1\. '1 / ° 2 7.fi\ 1 �� ��///-�� '-.._.,-_� OVM BUFFER(NOTE 4)�\ 1 r', \\ \\ SCALE:1"=2000'
COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY(NOTE 4)
LEGEND
TEMPORARY ' MW—2A���EXI STI/G_ RIP�PRz6
\ \ ✓'/_ _--_ PROPERTY(A PPROX)
STABILIZATIO DWM BUFFER
MEASURE � COMPLIANCE BOUNDAR
Y
I \\ ( ��!'•i•!Ir(� �' / 24 �*r�j�j �� ,�i _ ��_/ � EXISTING FENCE LINE -- TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY LIMIT(NOTE 3)
__
LIMIT OF CCR(APPROX)
FENCE LINE
/� UNPAVED ROADRRAILS O
./i, r,.�.% PZA \ I,, \VV�
\� / //•J � ..-.� WATER
2783 O, \\\ TREELINE
. 1 \.
BRUSH LINE
\ 2145 EXISTING ELEVATION CONTOUR
,S 'MW Sf I Iff \ X 750.9 SPOT ELEVATION
-O POWER POLE
?3 \ \\ �/ �\`� �• \�� '�'. ;/1 f' \\�r I/ 'V \ J\ �� \\ (^ RUNWAY LIGHT
/
/ \'\�I I.A,7 ` �FO �F LIGHT POLE
EXISTING RIP RAP // \.,•I� / 1�`/( RUNWAY LIGHT
EXISTING RIP_—�1%- / SIGN
1 ❑ •\ �' \ RAP CHANNEL �_- Y r� EXISTING SECURITY/ / �^ I �\
\;
�\ 1 FENCE LINE ,/i� t I 2194.E �` o POST
1 /
ktt7 \.•t \\ ,�\ i''� - } _-'�c / i , "l/ r �N \ N 0 GPS CONTROL POINT
/1 DROP INLET D �\D� A T•T `..� \I � '� //� l 1\� /�•\\` / ff � `( t'..�11 21 !� CATCH BASIN D
TOPOGRAPHIC S
� PIEZOMETER
N 836000 f1 \\u IVY �\ �1.\I �_/ /.. 1/ / (NOTE 3) \ /��" MW 3 MONITORING
�LI •1S:��t\ I� �� / 1 (ABANDONED)- --1 V��� { V 0 MONITORING WELL
V • INCLINOMETER
SO. 1, ri�t �. NOTES:
2214.E
1 T•1 - \,� \ 1 / SOIL CORRIDOR r�/ ////�� �� \, 1 V f- `` \ 1. COORDINATES PROVIDED IN NORTH OF FT N A STATE PLANE V TERMS OF NORTH 1988AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983
� \;� `� 1 ` ! � \` ✓J I � �5 (NAD83)AND ELEVATIONS IN TERMS OF FT NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988(NAVO88).
\,\\, 2. TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS PROVIDED BY MCKIM AND CREED BASED ON SURVEYS DATED ON 4 OCTOBER 2017
LIMIT OF CCR
` / (APPROX)(NOTE 5)
AREA 1 EAST FILL �- \,`\``\( AND 1 NOVEMBER 2017.
i`\\ �\1\\ 3. SURVEY INFORMATION OUTSIDE BE 2009 N THE GROUND
LAND CREED SURVEYS PROVIDED BY AERIAL
�D PHOTOGRAPHY FLOWN 710ECEMBER 2009 AND GROUND CONTROL SURVEYS PREPARED BY SANBORN,LLC.
A ``,\ ' 4�5 1 I i , 1 , �/ \ ,•\��'\\\I 4. PROPERTY BOUNDARY DELINEATED FROM SANBORN,LLC AND SHALL BE CONFIRMED BY THE CONTRACTOR.
5. LIMITS CCR SCALED FROM HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS,SHOULD BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE,AND SHOULD
BE FIELD VERIFIED.
E \ m AREA 1 WEST FILL 1 (NOTE 5G 60"0 RCP \/j�� \ '�' f E
\\ DESCRIPTION DRN I APP
C,/
\ tt � \� � I /' � \ Geos tec\�,1 � I �� 1 '1 / � �� � � c Yn �' DUKE
COI1MEET.IIIT OF NC,PC
1300500iHMINiSTREET6URE000 �
ENERGY.CNARLDTfE,ND z�95A
PROGRESS
PNONE:704.227.0W
/ NCUCENSEN0.:C3500
(ABANDONED) —2140—
EXISTING CONDITIONS
\' I PROJECT: DESIGN DRAWINGS
\ /fl AREA 1-EAST CELL STORM WATER GRADING PLAN
�w F O `�- / p� ,. `� \ SITE:
ASHEVASHVILLE ILLEREGIONAL
,NORTH CAROL NA p
' 3I O 51:�t u �=••p/ 1.0 \1,' DEGIGN W. KRF DOTE JUNE 201E
�� !z � K1 � f�_r14nsN�,oa �r- / � � \\ \ `DNS:C•R.! DRAM s+: JWO PROJECT No. GC6463
:Pf CHECKED''9 \ L•t ss.s �. P� l ,J 1 0 l / I I ///\/ \/\ \1 F' �omsm-,..�•♦, o°°°a�tls� �
BY: JDM Fl E: GC6473.060020
i xx.,uwE
REVIEWED BY: VMD IXiAV4NG NO.
e DESIGN DRAWINGS—NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BJpe2016 "PROVED BY: JDM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 I 2 I ~' 3 I 4 I 5 6 I 7 8
�s I It \ 21 2 1 0 ` \ LEGEND
W� \
PROPERTY APPROX
A \ --�\ ,u �'' � ) 1\96. \ \ ` ( 2� \ COMPLIANCE
BUFFER A
( II) LJ \ PROPERTY BOUNDARY \ r>} 0 60' 120' COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY
(NOTE 4) {1` ——_-- TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY LIMIT(NOTE 3)
_ SCALE IN FEET _-___- LIMIT OF CCR(APPROA
FENCE LINE
UNPAVED ROAD/TRA
/jj) ILS
O�,_.,,� ,t , \ \ \\VVIVI �� WATER
DVM BUFFER 4) j '�'Y'•"��'YYY� TREELINE
t 1 PLIANCE BOUNDARY(NOTE 4) \ \ \\ \ ("'"�J"`� BRUSH LINE
` \ —2145— EXISTING ELEVATION CONTOUR
EXISTING FENCE LINE X750.9 SPOT ELEVATION
'
-0- POWER POLE
o ' OUTLET - {
t 5 STRUI
B CTUREON RUNWAY LIGHT
/ .PLACE ADDITIONAL 5'x 5'
AREA OF RIP RAP \ v ' L°
\ \ 8,`.f- LIGHT POLE B
' ^,� q/ \ \ \ \ \- 2A/ \ UPSLOPE OF OUTLET o RUNWAY LIGHT
II f
MW-1A SEDIMENT FENCE / / _�-.�---�- \
GATI=✓'^ - /� -. \� \ j �\ \ 1 SIGN
o POST
P?.�6 CONTRACTOR TO LIMIT GRADING
` '\
EXISTING RIPRAP= \� ( a
_WITHIN S-FT OF PIEZOMETER TYP) `t 0+ GPS CONTROL POINT
��`'� DROP INLET
N638500 i . r�+t� %� 5 214604� �• ® CATCH BASIN
PW- PIEZOMETER
))) .-LY % // F L,- 1` �,,,..!l/!/J��/•��r.,/// '�'�� .41\46\� \ \�/ 7 II1.� 7 1 MW-3
GATE ' \j \ i/'r^ �" �.,-Xx3'� �- /,i / - a. \�\\��\�.--. _` SEDIMENT FENCE 2 MONITORINGWELL
TEMPORARY / / i _
WATTLE OR` (NOTE 6 4
I ` /�1/� �/•-+'/ ''-�� STABILIZATION i' / i '1'� \ SEDIMENT FENCE i t1 ) O INCLINOMETER
„\ � _
2142 PROPOSED ELEVATION CONTOUR(FEET)
-STABILIZATION: y Lo0
J 1 ' � j/'�/(/ � tiP /w,^.•-•'" �.- �//' 2140.9 TS PS `� r �STRUCTURE e I LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE
�'• G � __ „-JI`,/ ,J/ NC-1 ' C
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL SYMBOLOGY
2148.3 \\�\\\� \� ` I
.�� � \\� � � � e 1 DESCRIPTION SYMBOL
SEDIMENT FENCE OR STRAW WATTLE 7 6 -x—x—x—x—x—x—x-
I 1 MW-5 ��� \�v__,�,_' `•� STRAW WATTLE OR { ry SLOPE DRAIN VV
/; ."•�'G%'P"+� �\. fit- _ \ 5 2
SEDIMENT FENCE TS PS MU \ �`)
/ \ 1 TEMPORARY SEEDING 4 TS
J/1 ( y'CyeT•� \�.r_=--t._-._—_.._-'-`_-`Y`fy 1 6 7 � 'L --[}-RECP-{�-RECP \\ rt II 3
`� Zi Jii•l " -�..''- F y"°d A �`r'-- /, 4 4 } } \^ ° \\ J 1 PERMANENT SEEDING 4 PS
\ \l \ �Pr$/l.?RrS.Pf/Pvr`�/,,`�.F./.�I^.�1�����•E'�f / Oy \
"/y ROLLED EROSION CONTROL PRODUCTSe -{-RECP-�REGP{ -
�? /jI �1',-�;✓—'" EXISTING RIP RAP /}O DRAINAGE CHANNEL 9 o° ---L}-RECP-�-RECP 10
7 \ EXISTING RIP FZ-1 " 4,...- tr 'F (NOTE 7) e / / �%� OUTLET STABIU7ATION STRUCTURE 5
/ / e
\\ .� �\�" RAP CHANNEL �•"/,/ \1/ /} ^0 / -� , O
DRAINAGE CHANNEL 9 \\\ \ MULCHING 4 MU
O \\\ •\\ --- \-EXISTING GATE // D NOTE 7) 5 / I //\ 1 e
t \ \, •� 1 TEMPORARY GRAVEL_... 1,.1- }� PZ-2 EXISTING SECURITY „/- i� \i \/ �\f �• TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/EXIT q O
\\ �5 �\ `•, \ --�"���CONSTRUCTION
XIT 1 00 \ 2142.83 FENCE LINEENTRANCE/E /
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY LILIMIT \ NOTES:
(NOTE 3) \ I ` 1. COORDINATES PROVIDED IN NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE IN TERMS OF NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983
_�f •\ \ (NAD83)AND ELEVATIONS IN TERMS OF FT NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988(NAVD88).
LOORA LOOTT <1 48.13 2. TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS PROVIDED BY MCKIM AND CREED BASED ON SURVEYS DATED ON 4 OCTOBER 2077
goo � —__^.'�\� AND 1 NOVEMBER 2017.
GRADE LOW POINT TO FENCE "� \
DRAIN NORTH TOWARD �. i- OD 3. SURVEY INFORMATION OUTSIDE THE LIMITS N THE MCKIM AND CREED SURVEYS PROVIDED BY AERIAL
\\ i SECURITY FENCE OUTLETS S/ECURIN FENCE } ,�---/ > \f 1 PHOTOGRAPHY FLOWN 77 OECEMBER 2009 AND GROUND CONTROL SURVEYS PREPARED BY SANBORN,LLC.
•>\ ` .� ; 1/ , TS PS`MU�����/• MODIFICATION \ % // *�' 4. PROPERTY BOUNDARY DELINEATED FROM SANBORN,LLC AND SHALL BE CONFIRMED BY THE CONTRACTOR.
ff
N 636000 A\\ ` 4b /� , \/ \ 5. LIMITS OF CCR SCALED FROM HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS,SHOULD BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE,AND SHOULD
BE FIELD VERIFIED.
J '\ SECURITY FENCE 1 \\ (ABANDONED]`'-
3 -`/ 6. STRAW WATTLES OR SILT FENCE OFFSET FROM LOD FOR CLARIN.
MODIFICATION
7. CHANNEL SHALL BE RELINED WITH VEGETATION,GEOMEMBRANE,OR CLOSURE TURF°AS SELECTED BY DUKE
ENERGY AND THE OWNER.
E E
^\'` \ \ REV DATE DESCRIPNON ORN APP
\ AREA 1 EAST FILL \ f �J \`'�� GeOSynteOl �� DUKE
C.ODSUItantS OF NC,PC
100050UiH MINT TM.NCREET,SUITE 300 ENERGY®
EXISTING 6W O RCP \�� '� ONE
j PHONE]0619ASa0 PROGRESS
AREA1 WEST FILL TITLE. NC LICENSEN0.CJW0
/ GRADING AND EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN
t' 1
sa moECT: DESIGN DRAWINGS
1 ` /\l/ ��� AREA 1 EAST CELL STORM WATER GRADING PLAN
X j 50 1 AREA
OF CCR(APPROX)
SOILCORRIDOR ` �� SITE: ASHEVILLE REGIONAL AIRPORT
F °tt t\` IIt, f I ��—��...// 1 , (NOTE 5) / ` -\ ASHEVILLE,NORTH CAROLINA p
/ "' \ oESIGN BY. KRF DATE: JUNE2018
�/
•o¢-SfEss Om"BY: JWO PROJECT W-- GC6463
�0.x�LS nt1`uN1. _ SEAL �. CHEC EO V: JDM mm: GC6473.06DO30
041112
'G sffi Nac,vs,� 7' '01NE '• REVIE4VE0 BY: VMD ORALMNG NO.:
DESIGN DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 8J n.2018 `,SD"gin G
xY II111111tL� APPROVED BY: JDM 3 OF rJ
1 2 3 4 5 1 6 7 8

1 ,,I 2 I 3 4 5 6 7 y ~` 8
v Seeding mixture Table 6.14a
Species Rate(Ibfacre) Mulching Materials and Application Rates
German millet 40 ,
M17aterlal Rate Per Acre quality Notes
In me Piedmont and Mountains,a small-slemmed Sudantimse may be Organic Mulches
/ substituted al a rate of 50 lb/acre. SEEDING MIXTURE Straw 1-2 tons Dry,unweathered;
a Should come from wheal e;pals;
unweathered;avoid spread by hand or machine;must
COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME RATE PURPOSE OPTMAL RANTING DATES v/eeds. be tacked doom
Seeding dates (LB'ACRE)
a / Mountains-May 75•Aug.15 Wood chips' 5-6 tons Air dry Treat with 121Ls nitrogenIon.Apply
GIOa Piedmont-Alay 1-Aug.15 VIRGIRYEWILD ELYMUS VIRGINIGB$ ] PRIMARVSTABILIZATION 3/1-5115 AND 7/16-fl115 with mulch blower,chip handler,or
A •off 50, Coastal Plain-Apr.15-Aug.15 by hand.Not for use in fine turf. A
QJ/ 11711? BIG SLUESTEM ANDROPGON GERADIIf EARL 7 PRIMARYSTABIUZATION 1211-511 , Weed fiber 0.5-1 tam Also referred to as wood cellulose.
Sell amendments PM CUM VIRGATUM/BLACKWELL OR
SWITCHGRA53 7 PRIMARY STABIUZAMON 1VI-411 May be hydrosseded Do not we in
/ agricultural
remmmstone and of Iblacsls or apply 2.000 IG'aae ground SHELTER lot,dry weather.
T agricultural limestone and 750lbtacre 10-70.10 fertilizer.
Bark 35 cubic yards Aar dry,shredded or Apply with mulch blower,chip
Mulch
hammer-ntilled,or chips. handler,or by hand Da not use
6gmin �( Jr� App1y4,0001blaae straw.Anchor straw bytackang with asphalt,nc-Idng, asphal[tack
/ or a mulch anchoring tool.Adisk with blades act nearly straight can be Com stalks 4.6 tuns Cut or shredded in 4-6 Apply with mulch blower or by hard.
2 used as a mulch anchoring tool.
coarse ggregate ♦•e MAINTENANCE NOTE: in.Grlengths Not for Ise in fine turf.
99 tr Malntananeo Sedcea 1-3 tons Green or dry; seed
Refenilize Ugrov4h is not fully adequate.Reseed,referNlize and mulch 1. FOR MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS,SEE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION SECTION 32 92 19. lespedeza contain mature seed
MAINTENANCE NOTES: immediately following erosion or other damage. DETAIL NOTES: seed-bearing
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.b.
CONSTRUCTION SITE.THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH 2-INCH STONE. 1.RESEED AND MULCH AREAS WHERE SEEDLING EMERGENCE Jute net Cover area Heavy,uniform;woven Withstands waterflow.Beslwhen
IS POOR,OR WHERE EROSION OCCURS,AS SOON AS 2 VIRGINIA WILD RYE RECOMMENDEDFOR PERMANENT SEEDING DURING SUMMER SEEDING SEASON.IF SEEDED IN of single jute yam used with organic mulch.
2.AFTER EACH RAINFALL,INSPECT ANY STRUCTURE USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT AND CLEAN IT OUT AS POSSIBLE. SPRING,BIG BLUESTEM OR SWITCHGRASS ARE RECOMMENDED GRASS VARIETIES FOR PERMANENT SEEDING. Fiberglass net Cover area Withstands waterflow.Bestwhen
NECESSARY. 3. SEED VARIETIES ARE RECOMMENDED FOR THE NCDEQ MOUNTAINS REGION. usedwilhorganicmulch.
2 DO NOT MOW Excelsior Cover area Withstands waterflow.
3.IMMEDIATELY REMOVE ALL OBJECTIONABLE MATERIALS SPILLED,WASHED,OR TRACKED ONTO
PUBLIC ROADWAYS. 3.PROTECT FROM TRAFFIC AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. met fiber)
g mat 8
1 DETAIL 2 DETAIL 3 DETAIL Fiberglass roving 0.5-1 tons drawn gassfbersof Apply with a bo bound Tack with emulsifiedulcompressed
asphalt at air
3 TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/EXIT 3 TEMPORARY SEEDING 3 PERMANENT SEEDING agentogett
orwith a nontoxic ate of 2535 gaU7,000 sq it
agent
SOURCE NCDEQ (NOTES SOURCE NCDEQ Chemical Stabilizers'
SOU RC NCDEQ
Aquatain follow Not beneficial to plain grolvUl.
A.-pray manufacturer's
Curawl AK specifications
Fetrmat SB
Terra Tack
Crust 500
Genaqua 743
M-145
'Refer to Practice No.6.30,Grass Lined Chary-fa.
oUse of trade names does net imply endorsement of product.
d WOOD STAKE(NOTE 2) 12"ID STRAW WATTLE (MIT)(��) MAINTENANCE NOTES:
5 MA
,� ( ) i.INSPECT ALL LOCATI NORFAILU E. HEREEAND O RAINSTORMSONIOBSERVE CHECK FOR RILL C
C �� �y�'' � , `T 7---^ r(NOTE 3) EROSION,DISLOCATION OR FAILURE WHERE EROSION IS OBSERVED,APPLY ADDITIONAL
._✓ --- V ® -- -- MULCH.
-
' �to 10• 2.IF WASHOUT OCCURS,REPAIR THE SLOPE GRADE,RESEED AND REINSTALL MULCH.
- - / .er/.Pi.N.R/.R/,,��lrp�Y/ r
�- ♦ EXISTINGSOILd'fOdC4:i`4 . 3.CONTINUE INSPECTIONS UNTIL VEGETATION IS FIRMLY ESTABLISHED.
''? `'J ^ 30• -- - 8 4 DETAIL
STAPLE S T(MAX) DETAIL NOTES: MAINTENANCE NOTE: 3 MULCHING
CHECK �� -_.._--- - -4• li 1. ENDS OF WATTLES SHALL BE TURNED SLIGHTLY UP SLOPE 1. INSPECT WATTLES WEEKLY AND AFTER EACH SIGNIFICANT SOURCE:NCDEQ
MATTING IN DITCHES lJ RAINFALL EVENT((12 INCH ORGREATER).REMOVE
MATTBX'G ONSLOPES 2. RECOMMENDED STAKES ARE 1j"WIDE x 1k THICK x 30"LONG. ACCUMULATEDSEDIMENTAND ANY DEB
RIS.THEWAITLE
MUST BE REPLACED IF CLOGGED OR TORN.IF PONDING
18" EXISTING 3, STAKES SHALL NOT EXTEND ABOVE THE STRAW WATTLE MORE THAN T. BECOMES EXCESSIVE.THE WATTLE MAY NEED TO BE
GROUND. STING SOIL• REPLACED WITH A LARGER DIAMETER OR A DIFFERENT
�r14�.,�' t,♦�r f 4. RECOMMENDED STAKE SPACING(d)EQUAL TO:SON 1H:1V,10'ON 2HAV, MEASURE.THE WATTLE NEEDS TO BE REINSTALLED IF
BACKFILL 1s, 15'ON 3HAV,AND 20'ON<4HAV SLOPES. UNDERMINED OR DISLODGED.THE WATTLE SHALL BE
2"-3"DEPRESSION INSPECTED UNTIL LAND DISTURBANCE IS COMPLETE AND THE
5. PROVIDE T MINIMUM OVERLAP,DRAB REQUIRED BY THE AUTHORITY AREA ABOVE THE MEASURE HAS BEEN PERMANENTLY
1•ix.1� HAVING JURISE SUCTION.
STABILIZED.
STAPLES ON
r. ,'CENTERS 6 DETAIL D
IN TRENCH staple Slagle Check Pattern
D y `+' ' 6• X I_ 4"J 3 STRAW WATTLE
I� I SOURCE:NCDEQ
MIN \ 3 EP:a naxasl
PATT CEDGINHTRENCH 1LL BE INCENTERS ry APLES ON x Staple � 4"
AND BACKFILLEO IN TRENCH
B'mox srmdard stre th fabric with rvlre force NOTES:
DIAGRAM OA DIAGRAM © DIAGRAM ♦C e'max.rxtamngih tab cwithout wire free 0 1. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION
Wire SECTION 01 5713.
INSTALLATION NOTES: feM 2. VEGETATION SHALL BE INACCORDANCE WITH TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION SECTION 32 92 19.
Steel REF- ' Cross-Section
�....,-�--�_"�:; ;'��. . p-�--_- View. FERTILIZER RATES SHALL BE DETERMINED BYASOIL TEST.
1.THIS DETAILAPPLIES TO STRAW,EXCELSIOR,AND PERMANENT SOIL REINFORCEMENT MAT PSRM INSTALLATION, t ;;.'. Filtrr 3. SEEDING RATE IS BASED UPONTABLE6.11.D OF THENCDEQ EROSION AND SEDIMENTCONTROL
( ) Ins
2.STAPLES SHALL BE NO.11 GAUGE STEEL WIRE FORMED INTO A"U"SHAPE WITH A MINIMUM THROAT WIDTH OF ONE INCH AND ,.===�'[:=:;; YJ; :y �=A..; =7; Pimtic ai• steel fabric R.Mil t� wturol PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL
_ - E rpm�hh ground 4. OPTIMAL PLANTING DATES ARE BASED UPON THE COASTAL PLAIN REGION FROM TABLES 6.11A AND
NOT LESS THAN SIX INCHES IN LENGTH. t } _ t'
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 S. TEMPORARY SEEDING 7o BE APPLIED IF CONDITIONS PREVENT PERMANENT SEEDING.
1 (RECP)
�-- 'i-' d E ••• ��•:; GERMIAN MILLET TO BE REMOVED PRIOR TO PERMANENT SEEDING.
MINIMUM DIMENSIONS:1 j"WIDE X 1 g°THICK X24"LONG. .k"-_ - L pyt� d:1::T! .. Upslope
E •t_. a. ;rt`t I'M�� ."�_ grows 'n•::' �► E
4.ALL ENDS OF THE RECP OTHER THAN OVERLAP SECTIONS SHALL BE KEYED A MINIMUM OF 1 FOOT INTO SOIL AND SECURED `-.,_ .,_�_p
WITH SPECIFIED WOOD STAKES ON 3-FOOT SPACING. _,.Vµt"+ _ _ _-•-"- '+`4,,ti IC 24• :.•;'•7i:•,:
g - :.:.:'• REV DATE DESCRIPTON ORIN APP
' e'r wdo��a4•
8 MAINTENANCE NOTES: 24• -___-______- tthelrradl�_ Filter - =•-•
i fabric Geosyneec® DUKE
2 1.INSPECT ROLLED EROSION CONTROL PRODUCTS(RECP)AT LEAST WEEKLY AND AFTER EACH SIGNIFICANT(1/2 INCH OR
GREATER)RAIN FALL EVENT REPAIR IMMEDIATELY. coT35i Cants OF NC,PC ENERGY®
MAINTENANCE NOTES: 13W SOUTN MINT STREET,SUDE Sao
SA
2. 2.GOOD CONTACT WITH THE GROUND MUST BE MAINTAINED,AND EROSION MUST NOT OCCUR BENEATH THE RECP. CHARLOTTE.
N PHONE 70IM7.00a4o
1.INSPECT SEDIMENT FENCES AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK AND AFTER EACH RAINFALL.MAKE ANY REQUIRED REPAIRS IMMEDIATELY. Nc UCENSE No,Casoo PROGRESS
` 3.ANY AREAS OF THE RECP THAT ARE DAMAGED OR NOT IN CLOSE CONTACT WITH THE GROUND SHALL BE REPAIRED AND 2 SHOULD THE FABRIC OF A SEDIMENT FENCE COLLAPSE,TEAR,DECOMPOSE OR BECOME INEFFECTIVE,REPLACE IT PROMPTLY. TITLE.
SECURED.
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS I
tl 3.REMOVE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE STORAGE VOLUME FOR THE NEXT RAIN AND TO REDUCE PRESSURE ON
4.IF EROSION OCCURS DUE TO POORLY CONTROLLED DRAINAGE,THE PROBLEM SHALL BE FIXED AND THE ERODED AREA THE FENCE.TAKE CARE TO AVOID UNDERMINING THE FENCE DURING CLEANOUT.
PROTECTED. PRO ECT DESIGN 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 STORM WATER GRADING PLAN
5.MONITOR AND REPAIR THE RECP AS NECESSARY UNTIL GROUND COVER IS ESTABLISHED. CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA HAS BEEN PROPERLY STABILIZED.
SITE: ASHEVILLE REGIONAL AIRPORT
y F 5 DETAIL 7 DETAIL ASHEVILLE,NORTH CAROLINA F
DESIGN BY: KRF DATE: JUNE 2018
3 ROLLED EROSION CONTROL PRODUCTS 3 SEDIMENT FENCE
P° SOURCE:NCDEQ SOURCE NCDEQ `sPtH CARP �. DRAWNW: JWO PROJECTNO: GC6463
e XREF:GC6473XO52 Cuof ,g p; - O:-01Eaa/0..7
�.nLNN.(M15L. ..i SEAL�.�? CHECKED BY: JDM HTLE: GC6473.06D040
,eracrav _ ,t011112
^Gn1eE�•' r RMIDIVEDBY: VMD DRAWING NO_
B a S June 2018 '�Es O Y�n �```
LL; DESIGN DRAWINGS-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION "1rIII1h11°' APPROVED BY: JDM 4 et, 5
�r 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 I 2 I 3 4 5 / 6 7 8
I
Pipe Outlet to Flat Area-
TEMPORARY DIVERSION BERM No Well defln ChChannel
Minimum 1'Cover
3�
A VEGETATION(TYP) ° A W A
I—III—III— INLET INVERT (NOTE 5) TOPWIDTH ado _ ___
10'Spacing Max ELEVATION (VARIES)
ROLLED EROSION 5 Plan
OUTLETINVERTELEVATION CONTROLPRODUCTSe Le
24•IN.0 Ti I I-1 i I—I 1 IT-
-III- I} DEPTH VARIES (ryp)
5 OIfTLET STABILIZATION STRUCTURE CORRUGATED -� -III,-I I I (1.5'MIN)
1� �1 LA° �rii
HOPE PIPE—�� ._III_ I
APRON LENGTH III_ Hooded Inlet 7•s�aT
\ II II I lter
Section AA Fi Notes
0%SLOPE bl ank.,
1.La is the length of the riprap
apron.
�- HOLD DOWN APPARATUS(TYP) Plpe OuNCh netdelined p,tl=1.5 times the maximum
APRON -1 I I—I I 1—I I 1—III—I I MAINTENANCE NOTES: stone diameter but not less
I- III—III- SILT FENCE POSTS OR
THICKNESS -_-- _-- I—_I Than 6°.
APPROVED EQUIVALENT 1. INSPECT STORM WATER CHANNELS AT LEAST WEEKLY AND AFTER EACH SIGNIFICANT(12
III—III INCH OR GREATER)RAINFALL EVENT. 3.In e a well-defined channel channel
ex-
tend the apron up the channel
—�12. REPAIR EROSION CONTROL FEATURES(I.E.,CHECK DAMS,RECP,ETC),AS NEEDED TO A banks to an elevation of 6•
ACHIEVE INTENDED USE. above the maximum tailwater
B GEOTEXTI- d hwhever that is less of the bank, B
SEPARATOR -- - - - - - 3. RESEED CHANNEL IF DISTRESSED OR DAMAGED VEGETATION IS OBSERVED. 40A
4.A filter blanket or filter fabric
should be Installed between
,he riprap and soil foundation.
8 DETAIL 9 DETAIL
3 SLOPE DRAIN 3 DRAINAGE CHANNEL
SCALE:N.T.S SCALE:N.T.S i,i�l-.rti 'I Ae Tllit-
%RE%REF:G64730a%1156 F:G6 oa 173. — —1 1
�616'I!f�Section AA _�� �
Filter
blanket
OUTLET LOCATION d5p La 3dpkl�5.
W
(FT)(MIN) (FT) (FT) T)
NORTH .5 14 6.05EAST .5 14 6.0 .5
C BARBED WIRE MAINTENANCE NOTE: C
1.Llspectripmp outlet shucluresrecekly and aHersignifieant(1/2 inch orgrealer)
1, minfn0.centsfoseeiranyerosionamundorllelow Wenpmp lus lakeal! o'
or if stones lout been dislodged. Lmnediately realm all needed repairs to
TOP OF prevent furd-damage.
BMW WIRE MESH
6. 10 DETAIL
WOODEN
OS 3 OUTLET STABILIZATION STRUCTURE
WOODEN POST
Ryp) SOURCE
NCDEQ
SCALE:N.T-S.T.S
B' %REF:G64T4.6%a34
(APPROX)
CUT CONCRETE
D FOOTER WIRE MESH
(TYP)
�. •I- } CONCRETE NOTES:
FOOTER 1. AS-BUILT NOT AVAILABLE AT TIME OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT.MODIFICATIONS AND/OR REPAIR TO THE SECURITY
/ FENCE SHALL ADHERE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ASHEVILLE REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY.
\`� �• /�\/��/�\/� /� \/�\/�\��\i 2. COMPACT SOIL TOA PREVAILING GRADE TO FACILITATE NORTHWARD DRAINAGE.
T \\ SOIL COVER 3. GRADE INSIDE(SOUTH SIDE)AREA TO FENCE CUTOUT.ADJUST NORTH SIDE TO DRAIN TO DIVERSION FEATURE
(MIN) \ 4. ANCHOR GEOTEXTILE IN 1 FOOT WIDE BY 61NCH DEEP TRENCH.
\ 5. VEGETATION MAY BE REPLACED BY A GEOMEMBRANE OR CLOSURE TURF®AS SELECTED BY DUKE ENERGY AND
\ WIRE MESH(lYP) THE OWNER.GEOMEMBRANE OR CLOSURE TURF®SHALL BE ANCHORED PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.
METALLIC \
FASTENER/WIRE \\ (NONWOVEN)
)(NOTESEPAR TOR
3)
E (NON WOVEN)(NOTE 3) E
ANTI-BURROW AGGREGATE
2 WIRE MESH
g REV DATE DESCRIPTION DM APP
d
VARIES (,•._ � CONCRETE GIrOS LL(rC® DUKE
.I FOOTER consuIranLs OF NO,PC E N E RGY
d 6" (.
1,..: '•: ) 1300SOUT .WSTREET,SURE300 .
4t,
COMPACTED SOIL CIWLLOTTE,NC M03 USA
o 3", PRONE:704=.0940
� (NOTE 2) NO LICENSE NO.:G a)0 PROGRESS
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS II
SOIL COVER
r PRoEcT: DESIGN DRAWINGS
(MIN) AREA 1 EAST CELL STORM WATER GRADING PLAN
CONCRETE FOOTER ASHEVILLE REGIONAL AIRPORT
smE:
7 F 11 DETAIL ASHEVILLE,NORTH CAROLINA F
3 SECURITY FENCE MODIFICATION DESIGN BY: KRF DATE: JUNE 2018
.osulrn,,,,
SCOALE:')1"=2' pSH C4RD i°':
,^• XREF:G6473mx053 C �S A -=O.-OfESSIp DRAWN GC6463 BY: JWO PROJECT AYI_
nW�aS ;4p sEAL'r'�= pHIECfolp BY; JDM RLE: GC6473.06DO50
EywlNuavve 044ff2
'�"'EWE°6Y: VMD DRAW
DESIGN DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION gJw 201g
WI � •%pYa '��` NCG :
�NO
n,ll nttTOx APPROVFDBY: JDM 5
s>z
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Geosynte' cll' Geosyntec Consultants of NC,PC
1300 South Mint Street,Suite 300
,1 Charlotte,NC 28203
Cons Ultants PH 704.227.0840
www.geosyntec.com
Memorandum
Date: 4 June 2018
To: Brett Laverty,NCDEQ
Copies to: John Toepfer,Brian Weisker, Scott Nordgren; Duke Energy
From: Victor M. Damasceno, James McNash; Geosyntec
Subject: Asheville Regional Airport Area 1 —Technical Meeting Follow Up
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Water
Resources (DWR), Duke Energy, and Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC (Geosyntec)
conducted a technical meeting on Monday, 14 May 2018 at the Asheville Regional Office to
discuss the Asheville Regional Airport Area 1 "Review of 90-day Report Submittal and
Required Interim Measures." Subsequently NCDEQ submitted additional questions via email to
Geosyntec related to: (i) geophysical methods, specifically, electrical resistivity tomography; and
(ii) friction angle of coal combustion residuals (CCR) within the structural fill. Per Duke
Energy's request, Geosyntec prepared a memorandum(memo) dated 17 May 2018 in response to
NCDEQ's additional questions.
On 18 May 2018 Mr. Brett Laverty (NCDEQ) submitted an email to request follow-up
information related to the 17 May 2018 memo. Mr. Laverty's email contained photographs
(attached herein) with signs of CCR "visible within the scarp face at several locations." Based
on the photos provided, Mr. Laverty posed the following question: "Does your perception of a
shallow failure change knowing that CCR was present at the toe of the failure and discharging
from the scarp face?
Geosyntec performed slope stability analysis to evaluate soil cap stability, global slope stability,
and seismic liquefaction of CCR as part of the Engineering Analysis Report prepared for the
Asheville Regional Airport Area 1 Structural Fill, dated 29 December 2017. The stability
analysis results indicate the sloughs are surficial and likely contained within the soil cap or along
the soil cap/CCR interface.
Additionally, as stated in the December 2017, Engineering Analysis Report piping was observed
to coincide with the initial slough and, if left unaddressed, could further erode the soil cap. Duke
Energy installed a sand and geotextile over the slough and piping area to serve as a filter and
mitigate future piping within this portion of the soil cap.
Memo-Response to NCDEQ-20180518.doex
engineers I SclehTlst5 i irIrlUfrators

Mr. Brett Laverty
4 June 2018
Page 2
The photographs submitted by NCDEQ indicate that a limited volume of CCR was observed at
the ground surface, which further corroborate the limited seepage and piping previously
observed within the Area 1 structural fill. The CCR observed at the ground surface and
presented in the photographs are not an indication of a deep-seated failure within the CCR.
Memo-Response to NCDEQ-20180518.doex
engineers I wiemists I irItI -VaTOrS

Photographic Record Submitted by NCDEQ
Site Location: Asheville Airport
1101PIN
t f �r�°£
Photograph
1 P 1 4 �5 b tNnw
4 � �
t ` qu,
< t `
Direction':
1 1 Photograph
email "b L�_ ",a-l{j v�fth•�'"t' 7;4y'ry�zt*Lwn. `4.w
on i i
.f'S ''�"Y„�x!1 '?�i_1r•'�" � R Act''�sa �'�z'`tf.
la, 1rs t err-•'
T'T•it���{'Lr
NO
Photograph 2
Direction: ee
Comments: Photograph
submitted by NCDEQ
email on o
`` .{' ..y --s�SP 4"' �.� '-1'�r�n'„y tidy,} 4 •s` ,r `
"
f.
a M1� A10,
v1u + n 5 Y 3L3�+�iLr
a Ly� ''9-.. Cz `!' <•h ��` {y�,��1C�D�"(.,�n �"''Y.-7,Jt .��tYl o ,t``���.�y,`F
�a.�+�SY/wx„"'T,�r'....lt\�a.itk:�k:�S!.n�� - M.4 i iFf�•i,_ :'hl.��.zl'3Sr?�' �:t � rS:a..,

Photographic Record Submitted by NCDEQ
Site Location: Asheville Airport Area 1
Photograph _ t-
Direction:
email on 18 May 2018.
/ rTp� t H Nkyhe
k' 1
l
1�.'r,�r`�'lS�x� � �<xv � i�jl �Cci,+—n�`z+- _.+k 3/�k•' -'�r�"�"�`-�� �•`'
Wk
.fit.�•`S= r,..' :+ .y::
Photograph 4
a
Direction: IVI�
Comments: Photograph
submitted by NCDEQ via
email on 18 May 2018.
a 1l "h` "� 1 + 1F � •
f I 1 '•\
b� y

Laverty, Brett
From: Davidson, Landon
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 2:53 PM
To: Toepfer, John R; Michael A. Reisman
Cc: Laverty, Brett; Zimmerman, Jay; Frost, Larry; Wooten, Rick; Bircher, Amy
([e-mail]); Benzoni, Francisco
Subject: Asheville Airport submittal due date extension
John and Michael,
Pursuant to Duke Energy's request, DWR is extending the`due date for the required response to our April 30, 2018 90-
Day Report review letter.The extension request was sought to allow additional time for the Asheville Airport to review
material prepared for submittal.The due date is being extended from the original May 31"due date until COB June 8tn
Please note that this extension does not apply to measures Duke and/or the Asheville Airport deem necessary to
maintain slope stability, avoid waste discharge, prevent erosion, etc. and in no manner should limit Duke's and/or the
Asheville Airport's continued operation, monitoring, and maintenance of the Area 1 structural fill.
Please feel free to call me if you should have any additional questions.
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(a.)ncdenr.4ov
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.
1

••1 .o
•. •� .`rid-"+-� -,� a •. ��d'�Y
r
Y
.•�
III • • • • • I
1

Asheville Airport Stormwater Pipe Inspection Report DUKE
June 1,2018 ENERGY,
Coal Combustion Products (CCP) Engineering is providing an engineering assessment of the
Asheville Regional Airport stormwater pipes. CCP Engineering has contracted with Bio-Nomic
Services (BNS) to perform video inspections. For this scope-of-work, BNS obtained new CCTV
videos of the stormwater pipes on February 15, 2018. CCP Engineering reviewed the videos,
and is providing this document as an assessment of the pipes with regard to overall structural
integrity and recommendations for repair and monitoring.
General Observations for Stormwater Pipes
A video log (Attachment A) of the pipes at Asheville Regional Airport was reviewed. See
Attachment C for the location of the pipes.
60" Stormwater Pipe-This is a 60 inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) that conveys
stormwater from the Asheville Regional Airport. The pipe is located under an ash structural fill
utilizing ash from the Asheville Steam Station. The pipe is separated from the ash by fill
material surrounding the pipe along the entire length. The inspection was conducted in three
parts, starting near the refueling station and hangers at a storm drain inlet catch basin and
traveling approximately 163.6 feet downstream to an underground junction box (Vault 1). The
second part of the inspection started from the discharge end of the pipe and traveled
approximately 56.3 feet to an underground junction box (Vault 2), and then an additional 1,059.7
feet upstream to Vault 1.
Catch Basin to Vault 1: The inspection of this section of the pipe revealed several instances of
cracking and infiltration. The most severe defects found included an infiltration runner at 92.4
feet, and a damaged joint at 153.1 feet that was offset and the reinforcing rebar was exposed.
Infiltration was also noted within Vault 1 above where the next section of the pipe started.
Discharge to Vault 2: The first section of this inspection was from the outfall to Vault 2, running
approximately 56.3 feet. Deposits were observed which were being trapped by the metal gate
at the outlet of the pipe. A fracture was identified at 51.4 feet, as well as some infiltration
staining at 51.4 feet and 56.3 feet.
Vault 2 to Vault 1: The inspection of this section of pipe revealed several instances of cracking
and infiltration of varying severities. The most severe structural defect observed was a hole with
visible reinforcement at 751.5 feet. Infiltration runners were observed at 304.5 feet, 457.9 feet,
531.6 feet; 733.2 feet, 751.5 feet, and 845.9 feet.
Compared to the 2017 inspection, the main structural change occurred where the hole is now
present at 751.5 feet from Vault 2, and there was an increase in infiltration rate at some
locations within the pipe. Based on NASSCO PACP grading system (see Attachment B), this
entire length of pipe was assigned an overall pipe score of 2.0 out of 5, which is considered fair
condition. Based on the structural defects observed within the pipe, CCP Engineering believes
the pipe appears to be in fair condition and has a moderate risk of failure.
15" Stormwater Pipe-This is a 15 inch RCP that conveys stormwater from Vault 2 out of the
system. The pipe is approximately 68.2 feet in length, and the invert of the pipe at the inlet end
was at the base of Vault 2; thus, it appeared all of the flow from this stormwater piping system
was being conveyed through this pipe. The inspection started from the discharge end of the
pipe and traveled upstream. The water level filled approximately 35% of the pipe at the
discharge end and slowly decreased moving upstream. The inspection identified cracking at
21.8 feet and 53.3 feet, as well as infiltration at several locations, including an infiltration runner
1

Asheville Airport Stormwater Pipe Inspection Report DUKE
June 1,2018 ENERGY®
at 28.6 feet.
Compared to the 2017 inspection, minor structural changes have occurred, as well as a slight
increase in infiltration rate. Based on NASSCO PACP grading system (see Attachment B),this
pipe was assigned an overall pipe score of 2.1 out of 5, which is considered fair condition. CCP
Engineering.concurs with this score and believes the pipe appears to be in fair condition and
has a low risk of failure.
Recommendations for Stormwater Pipes
60" Stormwater Pipe-The joint with exposed reinforcement, located at 153.1 feet from the
catch basin near the hangars, as well as the hole located at 751.5 feet from Vault 2, should be-
repaired to avoid further structural deterioration of the pipe in these areas. CCP Engineering
further recommends to continue with annual CCTV inspection of the pipe in order to monitor its
condition.
15"Stormwater Pipe-This pipe appears to be in fair condition,with no modifications or repairs
recommended at this time. CCP Engineering recommends performing an.annual CCTV
inspection of this pipe.
`\��tit►Illll���
CAI? le
O
K ,•� �
AL
1130
Timothy B. Goforth, PE Alfred Dahrouge, PE
Engineer II Manager CCP Regional Engineering
PACP Cert.#U-816-07004846 PACP Cert.#U-916-07005407
2

DUKE
ENERGY,
Attachment A
Bio-Nomic Services, Inc. Inspection Report and Pictures

Bio-Nomic Services
516 Rountree Road
,��� mtrenv�onrrarv8r
F7ttecansanna sts Charlotte NC 28217
[phone]
PSR Block No. Pre Dir Street name and No Street Typ... Post Dir
PSR-1 AIRPORT
US Manhole Total Length Material Shape 1/1 Value
C13-1 164.7 Reinforced Concrete... Circular 0.62
DS Manhole Length surveyed Location Height City Sewer Use
VAULT-1 1 164.7 1 1 ASHEVILLE Stormwater
SPR 84 MPR 110 W.O.Number Purpose of Survey
Routine Assessment
SPRI 2.7 MPRI 1.7
Surveyed By Cert.No.
QSR 5241 QMR 4735 Bio-Nomic_Colt-Wimbish U-117-07006528
OPR OPRI Inspection Dir. Insp Date Time of Insp
194 2.0 Downstream 20180215 09:59
US Rim-Inv. DS Rim-Inv. Location Details Weather Situation
SSO Additional Info
,.. CB-1
•:ir:�a:
CB-1
0.0 ft. Access Point Catch Basin
I
0.0 ft. Water Level i 5%
I
11.9 ft. Crack Multiple 1 3 i WITH I.S.
I
19.3 ft. Crack Longitudinal 12
i
I
45.2 ft. Crack Longitudinal ! 2 '
56.5 ft. Crack Longitudinal
2
60.6 ft. Crack Multiple 3 ; WITH I.S.
I I
61.6 ft. Infiltration Stain 1 j
68.8 ft. Infiltration Stain j 1
I i
I
89.0 ft. Infiltration Stain 1 I
I
89.0 ft. Infiltration Weeper i 2
I
92.4 ft. Infiltration Runner i 4 `
104.8 ft. Infiltration Dripper i 3
i
153.1 ft. Joint Offset Medium 3
DUKE-ENG ASHEVILLE Page#: 2

Bio-Nomic Services
516 Rountree Road
irte environnentar
Fmwian spximsfs Charlotte NC 28217
[phone]
PSR Block No. Pre Dir Street name and No Street Typ... Post Dir
PSR-1 AIRPORT
US Manhole Total Length Material Shape Ill Value
CB-1 164.7 Reinforced Concrete... Circular 0.62
IDS Manhole Length surveyed Location Height City Sewer Use
VAULT-1 1 164.7 1 1 ASHEVILLE Stormwater
01 SPR 84 MPR 110 W.O.Number Purpose of Survey
Routine Assessment
SPRI 2.7 MPRI 1.7 Surveyed By Cert.No.
OSR 5241 OMR 4735 Bio-Nomic_Colt-Wimbish U-117-07006528
OPR OPRI Inspection Dir. Insp Date Time of Insp
194 2.0 Downstream 20180215 09:59
US Rim-Inv. DS Rim-Inv. Location Details Weather Situation
SS O Additional Info
153.1 ft. Infiltration Weeper 2
:
153.1 ft. Crack Longitudinal ! 2 1
153.1 ft. Surface Damage Reinforcement Visible ; 4
164.7 ft. Infiltration Dripper 3 IN VAULT
164.7 ft. Access Point Special Chamber l VAULT-1
VAULT-1
DUKE-ENG ASHEVILLE Page#: 3

Bio-Nomic Services
516 Rountree Road
igaenvronmeyar
Fraeocn spewws Charlotte NC 28217
[phone]
PSR Block No. Pre Dir Street name and No Street Typ... Post Dir
PSR-1 AIRPORT
US Manhole Total Length Material Shape 1/1 Value
CB-1 164.7 Reinforced Concrete... Circular 0.62
IDS Manhole Length surveyed Location Height City Sewer Use
VAULT-1 1 164.7 1 ASHEVILLE Stormwater
ASHEVILLE
.L�iiiY__ .
;1 7ef_f
Access Point Catch Basin
r ti1 I W
0.0 ft. ,� I I I
Distance: 0.0 ft. Grade: 0 Distance: 0.0 ft. Grade: 0
Condition: Access Point Catch Basin Condition: Water Level
Remarks: CB-1 Remarks: 5%
FYI
,.
Crack Muttiple I Crack Longitudinal
5
t
u
�E r
I I 18
Distance: 11.9 ft. Grader 3 Distance: 19.3 ft. Grade: 2
Condition: Crack Multiple Condition: Crack Longitudinal
Remarks: WITH I.S. Remarks: N/A
DUKE-ENG ASHEVILLE Page#: 4

Bio-Nomic Services
516 Rountree Road
me[r+,�nnmemer
(01
FVemnsper+s6sis Charlotte NC 28217
[phone]
PSR Block No. Pre Dir Street name and No Street Typ... Post Dir
PSR-1 AIRPORT
US Manhole Total Length Material Shape UI Value
.CB-1 164.7 Reinforced Concrete... Circular 0.62
IDS Manhole Length surveyed Location Height City Sewer Use
VAULT-1 1 164.7 1 1 [ASHEVILLE Stormwater
v rt= v.. a i. �� r?pal Ilf 4II ill � i
If
e Pki r4 {t4' II(II�Irj i
z Irr r�hr'.f Stt{ lli�! lii r .I
I, (
4 t
�j 4s I
I dl {f ity..J
I 1
Distance: 45.2 ft. Grade: 2 Distance: 56.5 ft. Grade: 2
Condition: Crack Longitudinal Condition: Crack Longitudinal
Remarks: N/A Remarks: N/A
Al.F
r S = �.
pa -1jV `r
I I2,115!2018
Distance: 60.6 ft. Grade: 3 Distance: 61.6 ft. Grade: 1
Condition: Crack Multiple Condition: Infiltration Stain
Remarks: WITH I.S. Remarks: N/A
DUKE-ENG ASHEVILLE Page#: 5

Bio-Nomic Services
516 Rountree Road
pram`sia Charlotte NC 28217
[phone]
PSR Block No. Pre Dir Street name and No Street Typ... Post Dir
PSR-1 AIRPORT
US Manhole Total Length Material Shape 1/1 Value
C13-1 164.7 Reinforced Concrete... Circular 0.62
DS Manhole Length surveyed Location Height City Sewer Use
VAULT-1 164.7 ASHEVILLE Stormwater
DSMH;VAIJLT-1 Ds?
lARPORT
x.
Yy
if
.1
I r ;4
11Lt 11
Distance: 68.8 ft. Grade: I Distance: 89.0 ft. Grade: 1
Condition: Infiltration Stain Condition: Infiltration Stain
Remarks: N/A Remarks: N/A
1
. , , AIRPORT'
r
If
T if
,2
1 1
Distance: 89.0 ft. Grade: 2 Distance: 92.4 ft. Grade: 4
Condition: Infiltration Weeper Condition: Infiltration Runner
Remarks: N/A Remarks: N/A
DUKE-ENG ASHEVILLE Page#: 6

Bio-Nomic Services
516 Rountree Road
n mesnvnannemar
Frcre wn Spe=MZs Charlotte NC 28217
[phone]
PSR Block No. Pre Dir Street name and No Street Typ... Post Dir
PSR-1 AIRPORT
US Manhole Total Length Material Shape 1/1 Value
C13-1 164.7 Reinforced Concrete... Circular 0.62
DS Manhole Length surveyed Location Height City Sewer Use
VAULT-1 1 164.7 1 1 ASHEVILLE Stormwater
�1 cASHEVILL
f
++•. ,.f' � Illf a fli.4:1`I'3' �1�1) �;! �s.•� a t 11 S t
l i f `i tlir. It 1+1 •Il I ]'
`1 � <tl�t I�t �+•`
C 4`
f ' Joint Offset Mediumt
t
I y a7.1
I 1 ,
Distance: 104.8 ft. Grade: 3 Distance: 153.1 ft. Grade: 3
Condition: Infiltration Dripper Condition: Joint Offset Medium
Remarks: N/A Remarks: N/A
11yy lril:; f 1 ,T�
f�
1t rY4 )` ,
� I
rCrack Lon!jitudinal
2115!2018
Distance: 153.1 ft. Grade: 2 Distance: 153.1 ft: Grade: 2
Condition: Infiltration Weeper Condition: Crack Longitudinal
Remarks: N/A Remarks: N/A
DUKE-ENG ASHEVILLE Page#: 7

Bio-Nomic Services
W 516 Rountree Road
OTheEiv-06mewar
Fraxwn stra=rgs Charlotte NC 28217
[phone]
PSR Block No. Pre Dir Street name and No Street Typ... Post Dir
PSR-1 AIRPORT
US Manhole Total Length Material Shape 1/1 Value
CB-1 164.7 Reinforced Concrete... Circular 0.62
DS Manhole Length surveyed Location Height City Sewer Use
VAULT-1 1 164.7 1 1 ASHEVILLE Stormwater
AIRPORT"
i.' . 'r
r
Jr
{ j
I? Ilk
Infiltration rt
IN VAULT
Distance: 153.1 ft. Grade: 4 Distance: 164.7 ft. Grade: 3
Condition: Surface Reinforcement Visible Condition: Infiltration Dripper
Remarks: N/A Remarks: IN VAULT
sx�t
, g`t5 ' O•
rr
CID
Access Point Special Ch3mbe
f y '
i
Distance: 164.7 ft. Grade: 0
Condition: Access Point Special Chamber
Remarks: VAULT-1
DUKE-ENG ASHEVILLE Page#: 8

Bio-Nomic Services
516 Rountree Road
rra env�nronemai
cecxnsaesa Charlotte NC 28217
[phone]
PSR Block No. Pre Dir Street name and No Street Typ... Post Dir
PSR-2 AIRPORT
US Manhole Total Length Material Shape 1/1 Value
VAULT-2 56.3 Reinforced Concrete... Circular N/A
DS Manhole Length surveyed Location Height City Sewer Use
OUTFALL-1 1 56.3 1 1 ASHEVILLE Stormwater
SPR 84 MPR 110 W.O.Number Purpose of Survey
Routine Assessment
SPRI 2.7 MPRI 1.7
Surveyed By Cert.No.
QSR 5241 QMR 4735 Bio-Nomic_Colt-Wimbish U-117-07006528
OPR OPRI Inspection Dir. Insp Date Time of Insp
194 2.0 Upstream 20180215 11:30
US Rim-Inv. DS Rim-Inv. Location Details Weather Situation
SSO Additional Info
OUTFALL-1
0.0 ft. Access Point Discharge Point OUTFACE-1
0.0 ft. Water Level 0%
i
0.0 ft. Deposits Settled Fine 2 5%
51.4 ft. Fracture Longitudinal 3
I
51.4 ft. Infiltration Stain 1 j
56.3 ft. Infiltration Stain i 1
i
56.3 ft. Access Point Junction Box VAULT-2
I t{'
SS
VAULT-2
DUKE-ENG ASHEVILLE Page#: 9

Bio-Nomic Services
516 Rountree Road
meenrmnmenrm
Flc(eacesM(+ascs Charlotte NC 28217
[phone]
PSR Block No. Pre Dir Street name and No Street Typ... Post Dir
PSR-2 AIRPORT
US Manhole Total Length Material Shape 1/1 Value
VAULT-2 56.3 Reinforced Concrete... Circular N/A
DS Manhole Length surveyed Location Height City Sewer Use
OUTFALL-1 56.3 1 1 ASHEVILLE Stormwater
USfAH:VAULT-2 ASHEVILLE
)� c '
;Water Leveil
}�
I I I I I �n•!���i,,,J�,Jt:l�(l i�' fr��i1}p+IU Yi t
Distance: 0.0 ft. Grade: 0 Distance: 0.0 ft. Grade: 0
Condition: Access Point Discharge Point Condition: Water Level
Remarks: OUTFALL-1 Remarks: 0%
ij
7k(
:Deposits Settled Fine
Ylr it 7 F ♦>4X:•f / .7` ���1 i\tY1 l
6.0 JtL I tf , I Y Is� I I
kt �}�} 77 (!! �• tttttt t i.�.��'7iL.F1r.�F,ui, `�iid�jlt t.2rlf:- r •s+.sn
Distance: 0.0 ft. Grade: 2 Distance: 51.4 ft. Grade: 3
Condition: Deposits Settled Fine Condition: Fracture Longitudinal
Remarks: 5% Remarks: N/A
DUKE-ENG ASHEVILLE Page#: 10

_-`
PSR • Street name and No
AIRPORTVAIULT-2- 56.3 Reinforced Concrete...——Circular
®®
ManholeUS Manhole Total Length Matedal Shape
IDS Length surveyed
SewerUse
®�
US�AH:VAULT-2 + + l ASHEVILLE 'US61H:VAULT-2 t} ' ., �+ Il11, { i,nl ASHEVILLE
I DS�AH:OUTFALL-i g' r rvM-;t +I r AIRPORT 1DSMH:OUTFALL-1�N
1 oj�l q t i,1� 'F� •'�'� i'#1 t� �'' ��,tit�ll, '1 '� fxy+� a.
..Y•`:•r '�,�'>, � 5, I , !1 F1 . � I r�;'� '.f;Y�f ( i+"'I i � �•+' '
I. i F• rt i ,tll{�}]}' I' .�� `f � qq,, I lr.7 �i J ,:f,• •1 y I,' �'«�..� .'�raf�,'
' i.l,._ �� f� �!( ! +r5'1�'� �'d L11���t I,!•�� I / "7�*- + �h' �+ `�+, i ��,��'.
,dnfiltration Stain? r?3�� t'i i1`r 4i, .1 1 Infiltration Stain
4
1fj
51.4 ft. ,1+ tr 'iYr t '', ,7i 1{ 2115!2018 56 3 ft
�' f -,2f�5!2018
Ll
o Condition: Infiltration Stai . .
Remarks: N/A
` x'_7 DMl� 21
�AV �1US TLS .,; A r IRArP SxOrH fRE„
V"I Lx4LE
Access Point Junction Box,
t
(VAULT-2 L } rt r trt
1 '� ..2115!2018
. 0
Condition: Access Point Junction :.

Bio-Nomic Services
516 Rountree Road
T11E[AvfNO:NtlRIAI
F=6a Cf1Sr r+a . Charlotte NC 28217
[phone]
PSR Block No. Pre Dir Street name and No Street Typ... Post Dir
PSR-3 AIRPORT
US Manhole Total Length Material Shape 1/1 Value
VAULT-1 1059.7 Reinforced Concrete... Circular 3.76
DS Manhole Length surveyed Location Height city Sewer Use
VAULT-2 1 1059.7 1 1 ASHEVILLE Stormwater
01 SPR 84 MPR 110 W.O.Number Purpose of Survey
Routine Assessment
SPRI 2.7 MPRI 1.7
Surveyed By Cent.No.
QSR 5241 QMR 4735 Bio-Nomic_Colt-Wimbish U-117-07006528
OPR OPRI Inspection Dir. Insp Date Time of Insp
194 2.0 Upstream 1 20180215 11:49
US Rim-Inv. DS Rim-Inv. Location Details Weather Situation
SS O Additional Info
VAULT-2
0.0 ft. Access Point Junction Box i I VAULT-2
r �
i
0.0 ft. Water Level 5%
I
1
53.4 ft. Crack Longitudinal 2
i
62.5 ft. Infiltration Stain 1
i I
I I
110.8 ft. Infiltration Stain 1 ;
119.6 ft. Infiltration Stain i 1
I
135.2 ft. Infiltration Stain j 1
i
I
183.7 ft. Crack Circumferential
I
215.1 ft. Crack Multiple ' 3 i WITH I.S.
I
i
215.1 ft. Infiltration Weeper j 2
I �
222.4 ft. Crack Multiple ; 3 WITH I.S.
i
224.2 ft. Crack Multiple 13 1
224.2 ft. Infiltration Weeper 2
I
232.8 ft. Infiltration Stain ( 1
I i
DUKE-ENG ASHEVILLE Page#: 12

Bio-Nomic Services
516 Rountree Road
r rna[n FeDamemar
;eccansaxrascs Charlotte NC 28217
[phone]
PSR Block No. Pre Dir Street name and No Street Typ... Post Dir
PSR-3 AIRPORT
US Manhole Total Length Material Shape UI Value
VAULT-1 1059.7 Reinforced Concrete... Circular 3.76
IDS Manhole Length surveyed Location Height City Sewer Use
VAULT-2 1 1059.7 1 1 ASHEVILLE Stormwater
SPR 84 MPR 110 W.O.Number Purpose of Survey
Routine Assessment
SPRI 2.7 MPRI 1.7 Surveyed By Cart.No.
QSR 5241 QMR 4735 Bio-Nomic_Colt-Wimbish U-117-07006528
OPR OPRI Inspection Dir. Insp Date Time of Insp
194 2.0 Upstream 20180215 11:49
US Rim-Inv. DS Rim-Inv. Location Details Weather Situation
SSO Additional Info
241.0 ft. Infiltration Weeper 2
241.0 ft. Infiltration Stain i 1
248.4 ft. Infiltration Stain 1
256.4 ft. Infiltration Stain 1 i
i
272.6 ft. Infiltration Stain 1
304.5 ft. Infiltration Runner 4
304.5 ft. Crack Multiple 3
337.8 ft. Infiltration Stain 1
i
345.1 ft. Crack Multiple ; 3
353.0 ft. Crack Longitudinal 2
I
353.0 ft. Infiltration Weeper i 2 ,
360.9 ft. Infiltration Stain 1
372.1 ft. Crack Multiple 3
377.0 ft. Infiltration Stain 1 ,
393.5 ft. Infiltration Stain i 1
i
402.3 ft. Infiltration Stain 1 i
DUKE-ENG ASHEVILLE Page#: 13

Bio-Nomic Services
516 Rountree Road
till env mameruai
FmreawnsAerfacsts Charlotte NC 28217
[phone]
PSR Block No. Pre Dir Street name and No Street Typ... Post Dir
PSR-3 AIRPORT
US Manhole Total Length Material Shape 1/1 Value
VAULT-1 1059.7 Reinforced Concrete... Circular 3.76
IDS Manhole Length surveyed Location Height City Sewer Use
VAULT-2 1 1059.7 1 1 ASHEVILLE Stormwater
SPR 84 MPR 110 W.O.Number Purpose of Survey
Routine Assessment
SPRI 2.7 MPRI 1.7
Surveyed By Cert.No.
OSR 5241 OMR 4735 Bio-Nomic_Colt-Wimbish U-117-07006528
OPR OPRI Inspection Dir. Insp Date Time of Insp
194 2.0 Upstream 20180215 11:49
US Rim-Inv. IDS Rim-Inv. Location Details Weather Situation
SS O Additional Info
418.3 ft. Crack Multiple 13
I
418.3 ft. Infiltration Dripper j 3
425.8 ft. Infiltration Dripper 3
f i
427.5 ft. Crack Multiple 13
i
433.4 ft. Crack Multiple i 3
I i
433.4 ft. Infiltration Stain 1 '
450.7 ft. Crack Circumferential 1
450.7 ft. Infiltration Weeper 2
I
457.9 ft. Infiltration Runner 4 '
483.0 ft. Infiltration Weeper 2
i
490.5 ft. Infiltration Stain i 1
I I
i
499.5 ft. Infiltration Stain 1 1
507.5 ft. Infiltration Stain i 1 j
i
515.1 ft. Infiltration Weeper 2
522.3 ft. Infiltration Stain 1
I
531.6 ft. Crack Multiple 3
i
DUKE-ENG ASHEVILLE Page#: 14

Bio-Nomic Services
516 Rountree Road
� rlie[nvu�nntenla
Rcecuonsaoa5rs Charlotte NC 28217
[phone]
PSR Block No. Pre Dir Street name and No Street Typ... Post Dir
PSR-3 AIRPORT
US Manhole Total Length Material Shape 1/1 Value
VAULT-1 1059.7 Reinforced Concrete... Circular 3.76
DS Manhole Length surveyed Location Height City Sewer Use
VAULT-2 1 1059.7 1 1 ASHEVILLE Stormwater
SPR 84 MPR 110 W.O.Number Purpose of Survey IN
Routine Assessment
SPRI 2.7 MPRI 1.7
Surveyed By Cert.No.
QSR 5241 QMR 4735 Bio-Nomic_Colt-Wimbish U-117-07006528
OPR OPRI Inspection Dir. Insp Date Time of Insp
194 2.0 Upstream 20180215 11:49
US Rim-Inv. DS Rim-Inv. Location Details Weather Situation
SSO Additional Info
531.6 ft. Infiltration Runner 4
539.2 ft. Infiltration Stain 1
548.6 ft. Infiltration Stain 1
555.6 ft. Infiltration Stain 1
556.6 ft. Crack Spiral 12
563.1 ft. Infiltration Stain 1
572.2 ft. Infiltration Stain 1
I
580.0 ft. Infiltration Stain 1
587.4 ft. Infiltration Stain 1
596.4 ft. Infiltration Stain 1
636.6 ft. Infiltration Weeper 2
644.3 ft. Infiltration Stain 1
733.2 ft. Infiltration Runner 4 {
741.6 ft. Crack Multiple 3
751.5 ft. Surface Reinforcement 5
Projecting
751.5 ft. Infiltration Runner 14
751.5 ft. Hole Void Visible ; 5
DUKE-ENG ASHEVILLE Page#: 15

Bio-Nomic Services
516 Rountree Road
Th&Enrmnmewjr
FGec�cns � Charlotte NC 28217
[phone]
PSR Block No. Pre Dir Street name and No Street Typ... Post Dir
PSR-3 AIRPORT
US Manhole Total Length Material Shape 1/1 Value
VAULT-1 1059.7 Reinforced Concrete... Circular 3.76
DS Manhole Length surveyed Location Height City Sewer Use
VAULT-2 1 1059.7 1 1 ASHEVILLE Stormwater
SPR 84 MPR 110 W.O.Number Purpose of Survey
Routine Assessment
SPRI 2.7 MPRI 1.7
Surveyed By Cert.No.
OSR 5241 OMR 4735 Bio-Nomic_Colt-Wimbish U-117-07006528
OPR OPRI Inspection Dir. Insp Date Time of Insp
194 2.0 Upstream 20180215 11:49
US Rim-Inv. IDS Rim-Inv. Location Details Weather Situation
SSO Additional Info
765.5 ft. Crack Multiple ! 3
765.5 ft. Infiltration Stain ; 1
773.6 ft. Infiltration Stain 1
781.7 ft. Crack Longitudinal 2
4
829.7 ft. Infiltration Stain 1
I
838.5 ft. Crack Circumferential 1 WITH I.S.
845.9 ft. Infiltration Runner ,4
i
902.6 ft. Infiltration Dripper ! 3
i
902.6 ft. Crack Multiple 13
918.6 ft. Infiltration Weeper 2
926.8 ft. Infiltration Stain 1
I j
975.4 ft. Infiltration Weeper 2
i
i I
1023.5 ft. Infiltration Stain 1 i
i
1047.9 ft. Infiltration Stain 1
f
1056.5 ft. Infiltration Weeper f 2
i
- j I
1059.7 ft. Access Point Special Chamber I VAULT-1
..r�rr•s
VAULT-1
DUKE-ENG ASHEVILLE Page#: 16

Bio-Nomic Services
516 Rountree Road
OFr'u mn°OMsan�acsa Charlotte NC 28217
[phone]
PSR Block No. Pre Dir Street name and No Street Typ... Post Dir
PSR-3 AIRPORT
US Manhole Total Length Material Shape 1/1 Value
VAULT-1 1059.7 Reinforced Concrete... Circular 3.76
DS Manhole Length surveyed Location Height City . Sewer Use
VAULT-2 1 1059.7 1 1 ASHEVILLE Stormwater
ASHEVILL
tr.Tr.-,M Water Level
,I r
Distance: 0.0 ft. Grade: 0 Distance: 0.0 ft. Grade: 0
Condition: Access Point Junction Box Condition: Water Level
Remarks: VAULT-2 Remarks: 5%
loo
-7.771
,.
14,
2 t
Crack Langit.d...] Infiltration Stain,
.a r. !r' +(�1 .ra' �4 act. Lt 1L�Y`♦, t��Y��
� �• ,�Irlf( r rF��r;Y` ,,{{
Distance: 53.4 ft. Grade: 2 Distance: 62.5 ft. Grade: 1
Condition: Crack Longitudinal Condition: Infiltration Stain
Remarks: N/A Remarks: N/A
DUKE-ENG ASHEVILLE Page#: 18

Bio-Nomic Services
516 Rountree Road
r rme vmnmentar
—e,nsradara4c Charlotte NC 28217
[phone]
PSR Block No. Pre bir Street name and No Stree yp... Post Dir
PSR-3 AIRPORT
US Manhole Total Length Material Shape 1/1 Value
VAULT-1 1059.7 Reinforced Concrete... Circular 3.76
DS Manhole Length surveyed Location Height City Sewer Use
VAULT-2 1 1059.7 1 ASHEVILLE Stormwater
d ,•
nsl;f i ,i� .F
i4 t •'4�
lit,
14 Wl'
. 1
Infittr2dion in
Infiltr2IFtion Stain
11
i2115120118I
Distance: 110.8 ft. Grade: 1 Distance: 119.6 ft. Grade: 1
Condition: Infiltration Stain Condition: Infiltration Stain
Remarks: N/A Remarks: N/A
iS ASHEVILL
,.
_ tl a.wi ' r
_.`� •�I
Infiltration Stain Crack Ciff'Curriferentin
12M5.t20118
Distance: 135.2 ft. Grade: 1 Distance: 183.7 ft. Grade: 1
Condition: Infiltration Stain Condition: Crack Circumferential
Remarks: N/A Remarks: N/A
DUKE-ENG ASHEVILLE Page#: 19

Bio-Nomic Services
516 Rountree Road
r The EXAFMArlower
ealxfonsA=Z�qts Charlotte NC 28217
[phone]
PSR Block No. Pre Dir Street name and No Street Typ... Post Dir
PSR-3 AIRPORT
US Manhole Total Length Material Shape 1/1 Value
VAULT-1 1059.7 Reinforced Concrete... Circular 3.76
DS Manhole Length surveyed Location Height City Sewer Use
VAULT-2 1059.7 1 ASHEVILLE Stormwater
!ASHEVILLE USfrIH:Vi ASHEVILLE
i ' n f?� ,
1 t i:: I t! l r11
}
14 Tt�,kl
ppD, .,t
1ff4�``;tSa t 'r �t
1
I+ ! �v
,I
Crack Muttipl!j'*
WITH I.S.
I l
215.1 ft. I1 I18
Distance: 215.1 ft. Grade: 3 Distance: 215.1 ft. Grade: 2
Condition: Crack Multiple Condition: Infiltration Weeper
Remarks: WITH I.S. Remarks: N/A
1 n,.li�AASHEVILL
inn 1 ! O.
�g It kA,. tte
y {
;:ll t A 1
rJ r l r
t� cltA f�?!flit
i t(',Cr2tck Mu pie I
Crack Multiple,
222.4 ft.
t
I2/15!2018
Distance: 222.4 ft. Grade: 3 Distance: 224.2 ft. Grade: 3
Condition: Crack Multiple Condition: Crack Multiple .
Remarks: WITH I.S. Remarks: N/A
DUKE-ENG ASHEVILLE Page#: 20

Bio-Nomic Services
516 Rountree Road
ftla@cewnsp u pis Charlotte NC 28217
[phone]
PSR Block No. Pre Dir Street name and No Street Typ... Post Dir
PSR-3 AIRPORT
US Manhole Total Length Material Shape 1/1 Value
VAULT-1 1059.7 Reinforced Concrete... Circular 3.76
DS Manhole Length surveyed Location Height City Sewer Use
VAULT-2 1059.7 ASHEVILLE Stormwater
. i
9
pp u . 1• 1 •s.a
224.2 ft.
.2115!21 I
Distance: 224.2 ft. Grade: 2 Distance: 232.8 ft. Grade: 1
Condition: Infiltration Weeper Condition: Infiltration Stain
Remarks: N/A Remarks: N/A
USrAH:VAULT- `
1 ,�rly . �1 i L {f i i I .O.
?•1 .��a.l��Ite.-
YYY`UUU
a1
Infiltration Stai*
1 ft. I I I
Distance: 241.0 ft. Grade: 2 Distance: 241.0 ft. Grade: 1
Condition: Infiltration Weeper Condition: Infiltration Stain
Remarks: N/A Remarks: N/A
DUKE-ENG ASHEVILLE Page#: 21

Bio-Nomic Services
516 Rountree Road
0y rite&,imemewar
Fm¢eauesczts Charlotte NC 28217
® [phone]
PSR Block No. Pre Dir Street name and No Street Typ... Post Dir
PSR-3 AIRPORT
US Manhole Total Length Material Shape 1/1 Value
VAULT-1 1059.7 Reinforced Concrete... Circular 3.76
IDS Manhole Length surveyed Location Height City Sewer Use
VAULT-2 1 1059.7 1 1 ASHEVILLE I Stormwater
:r
AIRPORTUSrAH:VAULT-1 ASHEVILLE U S M H:VAP LT-1 ASHEVILLE
IL
Infiltration in
on
248.4 ft.
4 'Y
�I!_
r r 118
Distance: 248.4 ft. Grade: Distance: 256.4 ft. Grade: 1
Condition: Infiltration Stain Condition: Infiltration Stain
Remarks: N/A Remarks: N/A
f
C� {
Koski
i tf'f1�i G r r •,• , - it j3 ,,,
r 18
Distance: 272.6 ft. Grade: 1 Distance: 304.5 ft. Grade: 4
Condition: Infiltration Stain Condition:, Infiltration Runner
Remarks: N/A Remarks: N/A
DUKE-ENG ASHEVILLE Page#: 22

Bio-Nomic Services
516 Rountree Road
\� momba Spftavo Charlotte NC 28217
FYctecf+on S,•mr+aGsts
[phone]
PSR Block No. Pre Dir Street name and No Street Typ... Post Dir
PSR-3 AIRPORT
US Manhole Total Length Material Shape I/I Value
VAULT-1 1059.7 Reinforced Concrete... Circular 3.76
DS Manhole Length surveyed Location Height City Sewer Use
VAULT-2 1059.7 ASHEVILLE Stormwater
br �� #Ir�1
DSIAH:VAULT-2
i u5� t r ft
L 1 �ff )
t"(t{ '3
�1 ! t ri+ltl
Crack Multiple" w
{ 1
1 1
Distance: 304.5 ft. Grade: 3 Distance: 337.8 ft. Grade: 1
Condition: Crack Multiple Condition: Infiltration Stain
Remarks: N/A Remarks: N/A
oo
. .,
1 1,' isr • 1 4: 4
14
Crack NAU ip le Crack Longitudinal,
345.1 ft.
� �T rs sf
I
y{5 �YL P..try}r t . '�( t•
1<
1211512-018 3S3.0 ft.
21151201180
Distance: 345.1 ft. Grade: 3 Distance: 353.0 ft. Grade: 2
Condition: Crack Multiple Condition: Crack Longitudinal
Remarks: N/A Remarks: N/A
DUKE-ENG ASHEVILLE Page#: 23

-�i •
StreetPSR me and No
AIRPORT
US Manhole Total Length Material Shape
- ®®
1059.7 Reinforced Concrete... Circular
. • _ Length surveyed SewerUse
f
it
x
US[AH:VAULT-1 ASHEVILLE US[AH:VAULT-1i T 3 ASHEVILLE
DS[dH:VAULT-2 m�I� tik AIRPOR DSMH:VALI _ e y -AIRPORT
•s �tl' il.V� Cam:4`+11.,� ' �
•."" Jar,�},,".{�1t���� Ylr}$+� � o; {� 'r'� �
r r � rh��2 S �lj"�{r r�• I4r rl �`r �
�. • rf ':��.r�"'1�.1 T�'y'�I�r7r i`�.(.��,.' t4� j ..y .. L;+: � v
ri'i1 4 Fiat tw •r}, " 1 { r"
JcM
+r`�
•
1 11 r+lt"'d �+ r a :r,
• �. {J`,��c.�� � ,' },t��'�i�� Irtfittration Stain � '
r{ 14
353.0 ft.,� ` k �r r•+Irta.) '` 2115!2018 360.9 ft.� r { 211512018
' s!�i�:���}rl._..1#•,,, 1. �� ,r
♦1 • • ft. Grade: 1
Condition: Infiltration Weeper Condition: Infiltration Stain
Remarks: N/A Remarks: N/A
US[AH:VAULT-1 #r' ` § ASHEVILLE US[A_H:VAULT-1 { rry�i,! � Iira {' ASHEVILLE
DS[dH:VAULT-2 xa r§ Y r.r" AIRPORT' DS[AH:VAULT 2 "f Ik it f y f/' 'li IRPORT
1 ll' (Ci
Crack M.1tL 1. . IrrfiltfatlOn Stain r
372.1 ft. r 377.0 ft. .( 4 '
2H 5,2018 i t' '{ ,2J15f2018
Grade:
Condition: Crack • - Infiltration

Street
rne and No
AIRPORT ®®
US Manhole Total Length Material; Shape
VAULT-1 1059.7 Reinforce d Concrete... Circular
DS Manhole Length, ®� Sewer
USGIH:VAULT-1 , '�,f ASHEVILLE USGIH:VAULT-1;,1+` I (ASHEVILLE
DS-MH:VAULT-2 t a 1 AIRPORT DStAH:VAULT-2,ti fJ� f __!PORT 1
L �
! F
StainN '� t+"y,•. Infiltration
Infiltration Stain,*
�r7 j^j
393.5 P. - 2 it U2018 402.3 ft. I 2N5!2018
Distance: 393.5 ft. Grade: 1 Distance: 402.3 ft. Grade: 1
Condition: Infiltrat• • . Infiltration
Remarks: N/A Remarks: N/A
kY / •�,: _ �r it 1 �� ��ti�yl; fr a 4 + __
USr4H:VAULT-1 , �1p sit .'ASHEVILLE USrAH:VAULT-1 ,I ASHEVILLE
li �' 1 �- DSMH:VAULT-2'i ( , , r r 1 f=
DSYAH:VAULT-2 1 J IRPDRYi 'ly +w '11� ri Lv✓{+ ` �r + AIRPORT
(� 4 t+'t' i ,
�+�r�,l it •�;-':9;,I.r'�'jr r} Y t
rat! 5�..1oil,'i`f"\�> •1s � rfi�/(�jf•.'F.'� �'�1.�.�t �� SS�cjY�i..i fr' 1 i
o,+y� �1���>�{�`'I 1'',' ,.fig t4��'i, /r��.£{`�`:f♦��I�`+ •:.�r�,�4:i} {� ,tI
{ brj�1��� l•` )�'��t �, �fr�+�:;7 .P l ;;i 1 1• ',:.r,•i ) :
t� )� �r�', F.' ,x=;� � 1 .�i�ifi2;pS.• ? :`5,�t � •-�-- L• i,
.Y�t It•�'*' +f�' C'�,,t , �l rw ,+!n. 1•'I ;..�,. ? •r-SY.,.``
fT,
Y. f,}+� ..t t i* rl`r i� 't3`li.:•'}.. r,r r� h , t 1
Crack Multiplel f � r fti InfiRration Dnpperrr
IK ; ��.,, „ ,"ft - " Est,`-;n/'? v"'':C• ,�
S.
418.3 ft. w�,r +"kl15!2018 418.3 ft. 1'; :"4 . { 2f15!2018
Distance: 418.3 ft. Grade: 3
• Grade:

V
Bio-Nomic Services
516 Rountree Road
ift
Fuecoonsa�a[sts Charlotte NC 28217
[phone]
PSR Block No. Pre Dir Street name and No Street Typ... Post Dir
PSR-3 AIRPORT
US Manhole Total Length Material Shape 1/1 Value
VAULT-1 1059.7 Reinforced Concrete... Circular 3.76
IDS Manhole Length surveyed Location Height city Sewer Use
VAULT-2 1059.7 ASHEVILLE I Stormwater
DSMH:�'A LT {; •• • ••
,Yye
DrIppefrFIFittralion
iCrack Mu e
f
A :
Distance: 425.8 ft. Grade: 3 Distance: 427.5 ft. Grade: 3
Condition: In Dripper Condition: Crack Multiple
Remarks: N/A Remarks: N/A
VA
• .• • #+ •.
b 'A
r
Crack Muttilpq!
0 :
Distance: 433.4 ft. Grade: 3 Distance: 433.4 ft. Grade: 1
Condition: Crack Multiple Condition: Infiltration Stain
Remarks: N/A Remarks: N/A
DUKE-ENG ASHEVILLE Page#: 26

Bio-Nomic Services
516 Rountree Road
Charlotte NC 28217
[phone]
PSR Block No. Pre Dir Street name and No Street Typ... Post Dir
PSR-3 AIRPORT
US Manhole Total Length Material Shape 1/1 Value
VAULT-1 1059.7 Reinforced Concrete... Circular 3.76
IDS Manhole Length surveyed Location Height city Sewer Use
k. VAULT-2 1 1059.7 1 1 ASHEVILLE 1. Stormwater
Crack CircunTferential
. I 1
f I I I ;I
k •
I.7 ft. + -2.115!2018 46D.71 18
Distance: 450.7 ft. Grade: Distance: 450.7 ft. Grade: 2
Condition: Crack Circumferential Condition: Infiltration Weeper
Remarks: N/A Remarks: N/A
ZEE
D 1 sfl� r 1 b.
�!' 1 C}M
t }
/. r1
i err fl=��a� ,• � 9 1
t/�d�rj{kil i
Infiltration Runner, T,
YY 5
457.9 ft. I I I
Distance: 457.9 ft. Grade: 4 Distance: 483.0 ft. Grade: 2
Condition: Infiltration Runner Condition: Infiltration Weeper
Remarks: N/A Remarks: N/A
DUKE-ENG ASHEVILLE Page#: 27

PSR
Street name
AIRPORT ®®
US Manhole -total Length Matedal Shape
VAULT-1 1059.7 Reinforced Concrete... Circular
• Lengthr - ®� Se er Use
USrAH:VAULT-1 I r� r -rASHEVILLE UStAH:VAULT-1 r t :zASHEVILLE
DSG1H:VAULT-2 t' `' (AIRPORT DSG1H;VAULT-2 rAIRPORT
icy " , RT
+'
/�';rt Nti}j4 .. a I r I[ f r• 7 � 4;
�.r`}'ill tl, '�,f'�,ti ti I �i ���r7 i•-�i�;, ; 1`r t
ids Sir $1 '' °� r
11'r rl
IrrfiFtration Stai
t 6 n S, Y• ti, r IrtFFtration Stain
J 4,,
490.5 It.. r ;2H5J2018 499.5 k. r• ', 4;rrrf,(�• ,��' 2J15J2018
!stance: 490.5 ft. Grade: 1 Distance: 499.5 ft. Grade: I
Con
• . •n Stain Condition: Infiltrati
Remarks: N/A Remarks: N/A
USrAH:VAULT-1 ASHEVILLE ,USMH,VAULT-1 ASHEVILLE,
DSMH:VAULT-2 AIRPORT DSrAAH:VAULT-2 i AIRPOR
It
•t ?j:ti,sAQrrr Ifti'-fly '
'I n'c 9., •l� to t� �v.tl'.S����•j � ti �f'��.i, ,
Infiltration Stain , Irrfittration Weeper✓.= �' ! t r.•9`r�j,
r ,I 'I �! ll• ` It 1 lrf�m� j�y11��'i{:�,h �''''�''"�11'.�, 1 ?�! �
507.5 k. • 2115!2018 t515.1 k. t J-1_Lr� r / S •2J15,'2018
• .- • Grade:

Street
me and No
AIRPORT ®®
LengthUS Manhole Total Length Material Shape
VAULT-1 1059.7 Reinforced Concrete... Circular
' -
®�
USG1H:VAULT-1 �yt �� ,1 ASHEVILLE UStAH_:VAULT-1' ;, ^j�� t�+ ASHEVILLE
DSGIH:VAULT-2 ;� a�11, x rAIRPORT DSMH:VAULT_2i�•r+;411, a AIRPORT
1stiN• -
Ar
r�styr``iT ., • .ram grrr1r�ti„ '�N4�
Al
..� �.� ti-'.h.:..f a � . ���Y7Jt Y'��f' I���;-• r I � + �`
Infiltration Stain' �` ` '�+�'� 3 ` k ,� Crack Multiple' s
Q71 i
522.3 ft. �, 1 r. -� ��1;`�,� 2M512018, " 531.6 ft. Y
1, 211512018
InfiltrationDistance: 522.3 ft. Grade: 1
. I . • -
Remarks: N/A
S FP
USt1H:VAULT-1 + ASHEVILLE USIAH:VAULT-1 ASHEVILLE
FF.. �• DSAH:VAULT-2 AIRPORT
DSG1H:VAULT-2 , l, � AIRPORTr
9 ,*�. .IS.� +rr S.�i 4rI.,rL��fl" ,1 • 1-fix�. ,fi.�
Its 7�j
Ali
t �' L � �}�yw�jgz
yr 'Infiltration Runnc ? ;3�. Infiltration Stain
531.G ft ''' * r1r]r�-•t,,L; r 1211512018 539.2 ft. 1f 211 512 0 1 8

Bio-Nomic Services
` 516 Rountree Road
fteedcs5 Charlotte NC 28217
[phone]
PSR Block No. Pre Dir Street name and No Street Typ... Post Dir
PSR-3 AIRPORT
US Manhole Total Length Material 'Shape 1/1 Value
VAULT-1 1059.7 Reinforced Concrete... Circular 3.76
IDS Manhole Length surveyed Location Height city Sewer Use
VAULT-2 1059.7 ASHEVILLE Stormwater
It
Infiltration Stain
Infiltration.Staii
r
1
{ III I
1 1
Distance: 548.6 ft. Grade: 1 Distance: 555.6 ft. Grade: 1
Condition: Infiltration Stain Condition: Infiltration Stain
Remarks: N/A Remarks: N/A
/IVILLM USM:"VAULT 1,
,,t
DSrAH;VAULT-2 - DSfIH-;VAULT-2
t.11
P: 1
+it s'� t •^+
t { F
•IJ1+ . ' fll1�. t � f���.
i "1 1-
C175.,1 1 I '1 1 1•:'+',
Crack Spiwall Irrriiitratio. St;:..]
556.6 ft. 1 1
Distance: 556.6 ft. Grade: 2 Distance: 563.1 ft. Grade: 1
Condition: Crack Spiral Condition: Infiltration Stain
Remarks: N/A Remarks: N/A
DUKE-ENG ASHEVILLE Page#: 30

Street
rne�No
AIRPORT ®®
Manhole Total Length Material Shape
VAULT-11 1059.7 Reinforced Concrete... Circular
IDS Manhole Le-n-gthI ®�
USMH:_VAULT-1 ��},rit � • ASHEVILLE I USt1H VAULT-1 ASHEVIL_LE
DStAH:VAULT 1 ' teI t t l Pia „ fla ORT I DStAH•VAULT-2 AIRPOR
K tt L +lip
71 'fl
' '' t'.1+• j}it�''/1:LI).4
�1 'fi.I'
' ti S tf r q1����+'"+r' ���) ,''° '" 1 ', (r.},,,./ �lp'i�,`"t+•,/�eh.L ;�'�+AI n +: A
' 1 S {•5ItFt,,r��S-�'T ��r f%�' fit' �ylL* �'¢
Infiltration Stain / � * �r a ~ f'r 1' I Ftratio,nn Stainl
61
572-2 It! 2115!2018 '588.0 ft- ':° :7�"" t 1� �� � •� 21512018
Distance: 572.2 ft. Grade: 1
:1 1
Condition: Infiltration Stai . .
Remarks: N/A
USMH:VAULT-1 s:A-SHEVILLE USfdH:VAULT-1 ASHEVILLE
DStdH:VAULT-2 ?' I IRPO RT' DS&IH:VAULT-2 AIRPORT
„ �r1r g��r1I1 �;� �d •
- , R •�� it 11:iP..t r
�s ;•I�(� rye
{
4:1v.
t {
Iteration Infiltration Stain ; r '
587.4 ft. 2J15!2018 596.4 ft. 2J15!2018
Distance: 587.4 ft. Grade: 1 Distance: 596.4 ft. Grade: 1
• • Condition: Infiltration Stain

Bio-Nomic Services
516 Rountree Road
OFmeaipas jalais Charlotte NC 28217
[phone]
PSR Block No. Pre Dir Street name and No Street Typ... Post Dir
PSR-3 AIRPORT
US Manhole Total Length Material Shape 1/1 Value
VAULT-1 1059.7 Reinforced Concrete... Circular 3.76
IDS Manhole Length surveyed Location Height City Sewer Use
VAULT-2 1059.7 ASHEVILLE Stormwater
T FASH�VILLE ® ' ' l✓ '4
n�a aLLE
D ! AIRPORTI
IN
ilk
RtR�jr
h`
Distance: 636.6 ft. Grade: 2 Distance: 644.3 ft. Grade: _ 1
Condition: Infiltration Weeper Condition: Infiltration Stain
Remarks: N/A Remarks: N/A
, ,
y
.:yh .
/Al �' .
Infiltration Runner
r, ,jury' r *,1`�►I,li1���
, r
, r �
i
1 vCrack MuRipl.,
Distance: 733.2 ft. Grade: 4 Distance: 741.6 ft. Grade: 3
Condition: Infiltration Runner Condition: Crack Multiple
Remarks: N/A Remarks: N/A
DUKE-ENG ASHEVILLE Page#: 32

• Street :AIRPORT
®®
LengthUS Manhole total Length Material Shape
VAULT-11 1059.7 Reinforced Concrete... Circular
IDS Manhole SewerUse
, ®�
11i UStAH:VAULT-1 r t' t i ASHEVILLE , USfAH:VAULT-1 r t, t ASHEVILLE
x}DSh1H:VAULT-2 i I I' , w AIRPOR ,z' DSt1H:VAULT 2 , � ;�AIRPORT
���;�(r. ��iryy� r ��;i a�.5f�1'{r r � 3� r ;±��1�. �`y!���kfl r ;3:.�s 'w•�� � ,t` II�(
its �+� �� �r I �. _.r ati•;(�(]., „[,!t '� 1 ''� k'('"'s: ( I' >t =•,• �!;r�
���(�j�t ,k:� .Ltr •.(1*'..' i�i — :' ' 1 � .,". � 'r� ,yy�"f ,"rra r �` .
„�,�,:e`Vy!
n. •�1 �rN Y.•*`: •1 ' a `�,'E (�j+7� „f� ..r_.s-t 4+r r-.` f', ;•}
F .t.f SAS�.ia`�` (!� �) fyt�i(, � �•`� �i,Y'T^� •,j y, � i �•
:rd. r, e�,,+..+IYY;;i� �• ' !''s��•1��� ��,�- ,j (y�.�,t,rti,1 .Ft ,f�� �• a; � �i�k
r -• y� f
;z^} } #�
'Surface Reinforcement Visible Unknown , Ri
iyr .,•`T` ,r 11 U - ` V�• '4•l.. rI 1r'dt i fr,Sj F'�
P ,751.5ft. '' 1 l: -1 2H5!2018 �'1"-/ �7515ft. . /f' 2/15f201�
Grade:!stance: 751.5 ft.
ondition: Surface Reinforcement Projecting
Remarks: N/A
` al, 'flu.r r - 7"r• ��r1li 11. s—'_�..� ; ,•
1 r .lj UStAH:VAULT-1 ASHEVILLE
USM1IH:VAULT-1 5 '- SHEVILLE _ '
t 11 r1, i t` 0SMH;VAULT-2 IAIRPORT
DSh1H VAULT-2 �11pq}}€• IRPORT l :d
�R�11 { #i rrt� ,.T.•v •�It,,y ' '•`(•. $fir;
! e , ��r%a 4�_`/1 r � � i��• •T. � �tx Z�'
out F
a � �• w / rt � ��� - rr •. �i •
Crack Multiple ! ' '
t e"7rF'�tF r•Itt�''.'r '.far , f l f ar'ril� �f li t���-�' -- r.,;
21,512018r, / ' 765.5 ft. 2A512018
k
•- . Grade:

Bio-Nomic Services
516 Rountree Road
meEM-4ameyaa
FUecticaspedatscs Charlotte NC 28217
[phone]
PSR Block No. Pre Dir Street name and No Street Typ... Post Dir
PSR-3 AIRPORT
US Manhole Total Length Material Shape 1/1 Value
VAULT-1 1059.7 Reinforced Concrete... Circular 3.76
DS Manhole Length surveyed Location Height city Sewer Use
VAULT-2 1 1059.7 1 1 ASHEVILLE I Stormwater
t)
DSMH:VAULT-2 (q, �R O•
i.
�llnfilltration Stain
Distance: 765.5 ft. Grade: 1 Distance: 773.6 ft. Grade: 1
Condition: Infiltration Stain Condition: Infiltration Stain
Remarks: N/A Remarks: N/A
U ASHEVILLE
O.
,a• u ,r � P '.,ltr
Distance: 781.7 ft. Grade: 2 Distance: 829.7 ft. Grade: 1
Condition: Crack Longitudinal Condition: Infiltration Stain
Remarks: N/A Remarks: N/A
DUKE-ENG ASHEVILLE Page#: 34

Bio-Nomic Services
516 Rountree Road
m800nspe=leq Charlotte NC 28217
' F�ecwn SpntiaCsts _
[phone]
PSR Block No. Pre Dir Street name and No Street Typ... Post Dir
PSR-3 AIRPORT
US Manhole Total Length Material Shape 1/1 Value
VAULT-1 1059.7 Reinforced Concrete... Circular 3.76
DS Manhole Length surveyed Location Height city Sewer Use
VAULT-2 1 1059.7 1 1 ASHEVILLE Stormwater
tl
1t h:
pt 4if;i t$ � AA
ftl r.�lV:j1 �t,
X.
4. j
Crack CiFcuzTrferential' InfiltFation Runner
WITH I.S.
i
r
Distance: 838.5 ft. Grade: 1 Distance: 845.9 ft. Grade: 4
Condition: Crack Circumferential Condition: Infiltration Runner
Remarks: WITH I.S. Remarks: N/A
UStAH:VAULTdl VILLE
y u
AIRPORT IAIRPORT
15,
lei
1 �l
LI,b
Crack Multip
Drippe
r
Distance: 902.6 ft. Grader 3 Distance: 902.6 ft. Grade: 3
Condition: Infiltration Dripper Condition: Crack Multiple
Remarks: N/A Remarks: N/A
DUKE-ENG ASHEVILLE Page#: 35

\I
Bio-Nomic Services
516 Rountree Road
tgaenvmnmen�a+
Frotdc snauaws Charlotte NC 28217
[phone]
PSR Block No. Pre Dir Street name and No Street Typ... Post Dir
PSR-3 AIRPORT
US Manhole Total Length Material Shape 1/1 Value
VAULT-1 1059.7 Reinforced Concrete... Circular 3.76
DS Manhole Length surveyed Location Height city Sewer'Use
VAULT-2 1 1059.7 1 1 ASHEVILLE Stormwater
D }, ) ��' 1
1a
s
.,`
t,r
I LA
N.
, Infilltiration Stain
,18 926.8 ft. ,
Distance: 918.6 ft. Grade: 2 Distance: 926.8 ft. Grade: 1
Condition: Infiltration Weeper Condition: Infiltration Stain
Remarks: N/A Remarks: N/A
Y
h
;.tInfittration Stain
�7
FL
ti
-F
1
Distance: 975.4 ft. Grade: 2 Distance: 1023.5 ft. Grade: 1
Condition: Infiltration Weeper Condition: Infiltration Stain
Remarks: N/A Remarks: N/A
DUKE-ENG ASHEVILLE Page#: 36

Bio-Nomic Services
516 Rountree Road
The 5 Charlotte NC 28217
[phone]
PSR Block No. Pre Dir Street name and No Street Typ... Post Dir
PSR-3 AIRPORT
US Manhole Total Length Material Shape I/I Value
VAULT-1 1059.7 Reinforced Concrete... Circular 3.76
DS Manhole Length surveyed Location Height City Sewer Use
VAULT-2 1059.7 1 ASHEVILLE Stormwater
--
' •' DSl`AH:VAULT-2
vi
Infiltration Weeper'
Ilryll'ittration Stain
t qn1 l., a
i
I'
Distance: 1047.9,ft. Grade: 1 Distance: 1056.5 ft. Grade: 2
Condition: Infiltration Stain Condition: Infiltration Weeper
Remarks: N/A Remarks: N/A
USMH:VAULT-
ASHEVILLE
VAL)LT-2
D Iii AIRPORT
Access Poirrt Special Chamber
I 1
Distance: 1059.7 ft. Grade: 0
Condition: Access Point Special Chamber
Remarks: VAULT-1
DUKE-ENG ASHEVILLE Page#: 37

Bio-Nomic Services
516 Rountree Road
me Enr+anmemar
ficeceons�e:ass Charlotte NC 28217
[phone]
01 PSR Block No. Pre Dir Street name and No Street Typ... Post Dir
PSR-4 AIRPORT
US Manhole Total Length Material Shape 1/1 Value
VAULT-2 68.2 Reinforced Concrete... Circular 0.51
DS Manhole Length surveyed Location Height City Sewer Use
OUTFALL-2 1 68.2 1 1 ASHEVILLE Stormwater
SPR 5 MPR 10 W.O.Number Purpose of Survey
Routine Assessment
SPRI 2.5 MPRI 2.0
Surveyed By Cert.No.
QSR 3121 QMR 4122 Bio-Nomic_Colt-Wimbish U-117-07006528
OPR OPRI Inspection Dir. Insp Date Time of Insp
15 2.1 U pstream 20180215 15:44
US Rim-Inv. DS Rim-Inv. Location Details Weather Ptuation
SS O Additional Info
OUTFALL-2
0.0 ft. Access Point Discharge Point OUTFALL-2
0.0 ft. Water Level 35%
20.7 ft. Water Level 25%
21.8 ft. Crack Multiple ' 3
22.9 ft. Infiltration Weeper 2
28.5 ft. Water Level 5%
28.6 ft. Infiltration Runner 4
36.9 ft. Infiltration Stain 1
53.3 ft. Fracture Circumferential 2
53.3 ft. Infiltration Stain 1
65.9 ft. Deposits Attached Encrustation 2
68.2 ft. Access Point Junction Box VAULT-2
VAULT-2
DUKE-ENG ASHEVILLE Page#: 38

r
Bio-Nomic Services
516 Rountree Road
trta Fnvwnmeruar.
Rdeanasae%aw�s Charlotte NC 28217
[phone]
PSR Block No. Pre Dir Street name and No Street Typ... Post Dir
PSR-4 AIRPORT
US Manhole Total Length Material Shape 1/1 Value
VAULT-2 68.2 Reinforced Concrete... Circular 0.51
DS Manhole Length surveyed Location Height City Sewer Use
OUTFALL-2 68.2 ASHEVILLE Stormwater
13
�(gt,rrt�iihiS ;1 rrr{tr,t f, t � Y�ti�rl �
f1 s1t t�}I' if >4 a tt' !(a1�r rt
,40
NAt rI+1•.�' I ' , !`��
S ' Yi. ut Alt y r_
Distance: 0.0 ft. Grade: p Distance: 0,0 ft. Grade: 0
Condition: Access Point Discharge Point Condition: Water Level
Remarks: OUTFALL-2 Remarks: 35%
/ 1 1, trt '� 1 1 �1i�,,1 ltdtdi��`It 1}i��t�• ..�.
�,1 a tit�tl) 1 4it�r tef,lln� r 1���
7.� 7SJ, It111 J�-�JkJ�'t'I((��(
M _ -' ��• Cfny 771'�
it9
Distance: 20.7 ft. Grade: 0 Distance: 21.8 ft. Grade: 3
Condition: Water Level Condition: Crack Multiple
Remarks: 25% Remarks: N/A
DUKE-ENG ASHEVILLE Page#: 39

"Street •- ®®
US Manhole Total Length Material Shape
VAULT-2 68.2 • • • t
DS Manhole Length surveyed SewerUse
®®
� ;N4;'�� r•:( t `,i•+:n,•e.1: rlr ..
USIAH:VAULT 2 i y 't}+ }1. jd '1A
� SHEVILLEJ i ,. USNH:VAULT-2 ASHEVILLE
DSG1H:OUTFACE 2•l+�y±�tY+�w AI RP0RTY1,�1,tt 4 DSI1H:OUTFALL-2 IRPORT „
�l ,��ttf�i�'i}�}•��,J�� •, J1I 1 f �.f ��,1{1Tv�`•`y4 �1 ,J:, r
. 'i ' =i.1,rt 4��'�ji��'J}-,. J�,��;',I,�•ti rtil S�4`a �v]:Y�{� t��� . ,i . , '. t�,gam_• l},
• ,t ,�,155r frrl��t'�' � , wn ��.1Y/1� �•fr�d•\fit itk f, ,
n. rr l •, / �t t J j r' 1' ,
J1�,�3' ,: 1 •t` 'Yf F 'r � +.rtf l
Y.
•,. � �� of , ��r••:�tT ,r 4: �, {;; } �u`, r
1•ti Ij\J � , n vSI }� �' .��pj` 111 ��.��i,. ' , �t�;�i�ll�1' \�, -z �. '��! d
It'IV
it 4
`rWater Level,' '� �.,, P
I 4 r ,,. •,,rJ c'd+��� +�, �T 5°��� .,.`,.rr
u tLrJ' YJ .,{I) .r•• {{;J�ei• "1• P . •. •fr. �/�ti..it
It
22.9 k. '2121 rr
.�,
211 5120 1 8t
•ft. Grade: r jGrade:
Condition:' Infiltration Weeper Condition: Water Level
Remarks: N/A Remarks: 5%
�_""1.1f'7rJa�fr41)�l".. �r, , J „ ' M+;•r�' t ' ' tr1 dfffgl•rHJr ;•� r ' � :«'tt,��•..11II�i
_iJ.i_.l rda t V ,,��.•.��L,�:{.Y��1.,•\
USIAH VAULT-2 l 1I :1 ASHEVILLEr' USIAH:VAULT-2—', 11J tI Fl1 +ft 1�t{''IASNEVILLE
DSMH,OUTFACE AIRPORT,`�;'„ DSIAH:OUT_FALL-2 (4 Ij i 1 AIRPOR
1 T11-1 C 1 ( h t _r
�jI+�. 1�k isf�
t 11)�f�r`I f 1 �;;tjj6 t r. 11� .aJ', 11r �d•
1" ,tit J ,,r7 I {1 " �,� {Kg
I. '';tt/1 '
::, ., �r�ll�•� 1� Q &/,�"'r ;. J�•;,'�,. ,�rJ,ly ig+,I � ,`, + y ,•�yp ;�,
r q,
e a ,, �"t y ,1,•I , ,,I �1, ti .:,�rr'' ". { I �'}' i y;�'r r itt If �7
'' .,1,' +' �.:' ,Qi lt',��''�"j,� f' ;4_.�*i%,, ,', 1 I y�`�r� U 111: ,• 1�' r 1 �'���•'t4'��`'
} i /, /I}- t�J.a..e,!.. r r(1`r't tf n 6� , 1' � 1) , •�,} l�t1
•t,1 ,� J,y J ,,}1 {u, ,.+ ,�.. .. '- -►--�� 1�I v �ti!t r. '� p.� k� � Sy�y�� jo
Infiltration Runncr'�q{ � i�ll1(�t�tf}�'`riaf�}ris ,r?� Infiltration Sta.n'�')i`'f �
• F. +ttir F + ' :•��f , qte+..��' L0. 7.+.
'�• 'aye.l:{� ''1' r:1"''r''` - , ' 4'e0
28.6 k.
j �"� 52;1512018�'t
�lid�1Y I , .� .M1 rt tS.'r •�'.':�/ri.7'btC_�r•`t!.
Condition: Infiltrat• Runner Condition: Infiltration Stain

Bio-Nomic Services
t 516 Rountree Road
rlre✓=nrmnmemar
P'CwAnspeuaw' Charlotte NC 28217
[phone]
PSR Block No. Pre Dir Street name and No Street Typ... Post Dir
PSR-4 AIRPORT
US Manhole Total Length Material Shape 1/1 Value
VAULT-2 68.2 Reinforced Concrete... Circular 0.51
DS Manhole Length surveyed Location Height city Sewer Use
OUTFALL-2 1 68.2 1 1 ASHEVILLE Stormwater
J.
II " 11
1 1 ' 1►�Y�, 7 1. 1 1 { � t i 1.
I1'i41'.;f��
� 1 �ti•111 r �(('Ii�.l ri ll�t III rrJh r i� 1 J A. I� ((J.�"�� �5 / I�{'111.�i 11'" ,
t, J ,�'f.}. t 1'•ti:��� �( ,`��r 1� � �: �� '� ''`r�l�'�1!��i1� �I r•.,�t 1
''Y ; i 1. U !!!""1`ij.:,Ir��ti�J• j r ' 1 1 �� S
+r f';}�rtl.rttil+ y.��3haiy 1il>� 5..V'�� }r•r��i�,�,q�tl�yS�t4" ;t� I
J� r1 r 1+�}1 .�•li l�f�lI s 1� m II��• yet h� It.��ll 71Ll�lir F 'I j
Ir.,7J t•I :ht/�"7i �111LtiJ / r i � (•.1rf (,fl 1�t��� ,�I,R
�xc,+�,r���ja?�.�,���51'�;1�wai�#,r�ll=+i� I£; �•rfl� �� �;'�s(`? sir �ul�,f� • �
a
'n I
t 1,
e +
f
r r
Distance: 53.3 ft. Grade: 2 Distance: 53.3 ft. Grade: 1
Condition: Fracture Circumferential Condition: Infiltration Stain
Remarks: N/A Remarks: N/A
RL
U LT ASHEVILLE
1 1• AIRPORT
a
�t ;ya;
111 w :k! f.9
Access Point Junction BOX
IL2/1512018
Distance: 65.9 ft. Grade: 2 Distance: 68.2 ft. Grade: 0
Condition: Deposits Attached Encrustation Condition: Access Point Junction Box
Remarks: N/A Remarks: VAULT-2
DUKE—ENG ASHEVILLE Page#: 41

DUKE
ENERGY®
Attachment B
NASSCO PACP Grading System

PACP Defect rating
Defect Grades: Grades have two categories;Structural and O&M 5 - Most significant defect grade
defects.A severity level of 1 to 5 is entered based on the PACP code
chosen.Level description is on the right. 4 — Significant
Structural defect observations are defects in the pipe structure. 3 _ Moderate defect rode
(example:broken pipe,fractures and collapsed pipe) g
O&M(Operation&maintenance)defect observations are items 2 - Minor to Moderate defect grade
that cause blockages on the inside of the pipe.(example:Roots, 1 - Minor defect grade
grease and rocks)
The PACP scoring system is dependant on the quality of the inspection.Errors in coding will affect the score. Colors shown above are from the l.T.pipes inspection software
NASSCO PACP scoring system breakdown
QUICK RATINGS: A four character way to prioritize a segment of pipe QUICK STRUCTURAL RATING
based on the number and level of defects entered. QSR Rating based on Structural defect observations
r-•-••-............._ ••....... entered into an inspection.
Highest 2"d Highest _ Ex.Broken,cracks,fractures,holes,deformed
Severity d Severity and collapsed pipe.
2 �f QUICK MAINTENANCE RATING
#of Q M R Rating based on O&M defect observations
occurrences occurrences entered into an inspection.
............._.__...__..._.........................
Ex.Grease,roots,debris,ect.
Some Quick Ratings will have an letter in the 2nd or 4th position.
Each letter defines how many times over it occurred over Nine. QUICK OVERALL RATING
Q®R Rating based on combining O&M and Structural
Example:4C3A The level 4 defect was entered between(C)20 and 24 times. defect observations entered into an inspection.
The level 3 defect was(A)entered 10 to 14 times. NOTE:This is only available inside LT.Pipes
software and is not part of the NASSCO PACP
A 10-14 E 30-34 1 50-54 M 70-74 Q 90-94 U 110-114 Y 130-134 system.
B 15-19 F 35-39 J 55-59 N 75-79 R 95-99 V 115-119 Z 135+
C 20-24 G 40-44 K 60-64 O 80-84 S 100-104 W 120-124 The scores are based on a 1 to 5 system.1 is minor defect
D 25-29 H 45-49 L 65-69 P 85-89 T 105-109 X 125-129 grade(good)and 5 is most significant defects(bad).
PIPE RATINGS:The sum of the defect severity ratings entered into an
STRUCTURAL PIPE RATING
SPR inspection.Add(Sum)all the Structural and/or Maintenance observation
Sum of all structural defect severity severity levels together.
levels Example: a line has 3-level 1,2-level 2 and 2-level 5 defects.The rate for
MAINTENANCE PIPE RATING this line would be 17(3+4+10).
M P R Sum of all maintenance defect severity levels
CONTINUOUS DEFECTS:Effect the scoring system by calculating
defects over a length of pipe and adding it to the scoring system.It is
OVERALL PIPE RATING calculated by dividing the length of the continuous defect by 5 and adding
OP R
Sum of all structural&maintenance that number of defects to the scoring system.
defect severity levels Example:level 3 defect was 100ft long start to end.100/5=20 20
instances of level 3 will be added to the scoring system.
SPRI STRUCTURAL PIPE RATING INDEX PIPE RATINGS INDEX:The average of the Pipe Ratings
Average of the Structural Pipe Rating entered into an inspection.Divide the Pipe Rating by the
number of Structural and/or Maintenance observation.
M PRI MAINTENANCE PIPE RATING INDEX Example:The pipe rating example of 17 used above would
Average of the Maintenance(O&M)Pipe Rating have a pipe rating index of 2.4.
Pipe rating/number of observation 17/7=2.4
OVERALL PIPE RATING INDEX
0 PRI Average of both Structural&Maintenance These scores are based on a 1 to 5 system. 1 is nothing in
(O&M)Pipe Ratings foreseeable future(good)and 5 is complete failure likely in the
near future(bad).
Additional information can be found in Appendix D of the NASSCO PACP manual.(version 6 September 2010)

DUKE
ENERGY,
Attachment C
Pipe Location Map

#� T� .�
a,.,:�';r �} �;:t'' ,�;s _ D� '����k.,.Y,die�•yi�}r'.�` � '2'x Y r ;wF �' F`,<''.y + ,,'y+�", � ,. Ms� `r i' r .
. 3 „ ';�y ,ter. r�4v * ;d1�„�•5:, `��,. � , '`t+,'� +`�,t.'y�;f 1•
+ s • 4..... d "•£kpv '`•'�'� ''S y s'>'` sw �,�. r a � i3'�y irE �.''�
.. .:.: . .,r'- 3 ka:,y� 3.'u,•`'� .�t,Mh r1�i+�"Ni�
{ a
h rF�l�Y.vtF1: CK �n ✓ �s a
' r
D
4
o y y qy
�^: .� pt i .' :' '1 �-♦sib s+.# g� A .M1 +�k? �w
< a r z
9�
� t �� -n t�"Z I�(`'• �rt � •,,p � • � �' '�`� � ��f � ' tit"��s
ir
.� �� �_but y n�a }?} hb''M'v
i t { 1 ♦ 'i 3n )i:• �'p r� .ifi+_@, Y iy �� }
kv
9
'�<'��,,. 1 r ' a � >i. r�-�r �i �4r' '?Y '�` .sue F •�'
{ ; All;@ �.k 4dxrn.� 7 � r � � Ilk
' ' �' � 'rye .� 9 5 .: g• ��`����, �,���� � 'e. �. ��
Legend
a
11 Inlet
DDischarge Point
0 Vault Discharge Pipe

Duke Energy Company
For Internal Use Only
Record is located on the
Video (Vault) Lanshare
To view this file click the following link:
\\testa\CCP\Asheville\ASH ANL-INSP 2018 A
Please Note:
• Record(s) listed above may have viewer restrictions
causing you to be unable to view the data information
or the actual record. If you have questions related to
these types of records and their limited access
contact your management.

Laverty, Brett
From: Rita Yanz<[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 3:15 PM
To: Laverty, Brett
Cc: Michael A. Reisman
Subject: [External] Charah Documents
Attachments: Charah Contract dtd 11-6-2007.pdf; Attachment A to Contract.pdf; Access Agreement dtd
2-29-2016.pdf
Importance: High
CAUTION- External email. Do notclick links or open attachments unle ss verified.Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Mr. Laverty: I've attached the documents requested. Please let me know you received all documents. Thank you.
Rita Yanz, Development Coordinator II
Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority
E-mail: ryanz(a_flyavl.com
Office: 828-654-3252
Fax: [phone]
Ag &XI���PONT
Take the easy wary out
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

In:
NOV 012007
COUNTY OF BUNCOMBE
.STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
This Agreement is made and entered into, as of the ��14 day of
/(/d-V e Aw* i.— , .20,07, by aTid between Charah, Inc. ("Charah") ,
and Asheville Regional ,Airport .Authority ("ARAAl") .
WITNESSETH:
Whereas,, Progress Energy Carolinas. ("PEG") has an. abundant Supply
of bottom ash and fly ash (collectively, "Ash") , which is not availa-
ble, from any other source of supply, and PEC. needs to remove some of
the Ash from its ash ponds; _
Whereas, Charah is engaged in the business of materials manage-
ment and hauling, placement, compaction, stabilization, and securin
g
of materials, such as Ash;
Whereas, P9C -and Charah have •enteked into an Ash Reclamation Con-
tract ("Contract") ,. which .was effective as of June 18, 2007,; however,
ARAA is not a party to the Contract, and. is not bound or affected by
the terms and provisions of the Contract; and
Whereas, ARAA is agreeable to having the Ash placed upon the
"Project Site, " which i.s• located at the Asheville Regional Airport
("Airport",) and. is, more fully identified in Attachment 1._
Now, therefore, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Charah shall provide all of the Ash needed for, the per'for-
inance of this Agreement.- Charah shall haul the Ash to the Project
site and place, compact, and secure the Ash thereon. As part of this
work, Charah shall be responsible for the installation of all requi-
'ite "ash bed liners," and "under-drain syst-�ems.." The "Operating
Plan" for this phase of work, including,
ing, but not limited to., prelimi-
nary work items and daily operational 1 items are set, forth, in Attach-
ment 2. (Attachment 2 and all of the
he other Attachments referred to in
this Agreement are incorporated herein by this reference thereto and
are considered a part hereof. )
2. Charah hereby represents to, and covenants with and to, ARAA
,that,: The Ash is a safe-, benign, inert material, which may be used,
without any pres,ent or future limitation, -restriction, or prohibition,
as a structural fill material and/or. as a structural landfill materi-
al; based on current, federal, state and local regulations the Ash
shall not cause. or create any present or future limitationr restric-
tion, or prohibition with respect to the use of the Project Site or
the Airport,; the Ash shall adequately and safely support the construc-
§44,6:

I �
tion and unlimited' subsequent use of,, for example, aircraft parking
areas., aircraft runways, aircraft 'taxiways, aircraft aprons, large
aircraft hangars, and large buildings (such as a terminal building, an
_ arlr—traffic- control-tower-,- -manufacturing fac l-it es;,- office buildings-,- - -- • -- ---- f
and hotels.) ; based upon current laws; regulations, requirements, and
restrictions the Ash does not and shall not in the future, cause or
create any health or environmental hazard or problem and the Ash does
not, and shall not in the future, constitute a hazard to, or endanger, j
people, wildlife, or plants, or the atmosphere, air,, soil, water•, or
water supply. Charah shall conduct materials testing, including,: but
not limited to, full metal testing,- in order to ensure that, prior to
placement at the Project Site, the Ash _meets or exce,eds all applicable
and acceptable environmental. and safety levels and. all applicable re-
quirements and standards, and in order to ensure that the Ash .and the
use thereof are in compliance with all applicable environmental and
safety requirements. and standards and all applicable laws, regula-
tions, requirements and restrictions':. Charah shall. forthwith deliver
to ARAA a certified copy of the results• of each such test. E;Furtlu
,doer i_—=A r ng Charah's-- peryformance—ot-::it-h s A reement and=-fo
P
e -god
g .
:of--fire- e'ars after _Charah'-s perfor ante-_hereof, Charah-_shall- monitor
thetio tfal� om�th -Project Site fob the_-purpose-of determining---water {
ali
tys,. in order to, ensure that all .applicable and acceptable envi
rontenta.1 levels, and all applicable requirements: and standards are be,
ing maintained at all. times; Charah shall forthwith deliver to ARAA a
certified copy of each monitoring report. The certified copies re-
ferred, to in this Paragraph 2 shall not be confidential or .privileged
documents,, and they shall be considered public records. As used in
this paragraph, Ash includes, but is not limited to, its elements,•
Components., composition,. and anything resulting from the breakdown
and/or decomposition thereof, and any flowage therefrom-.,
i
3. PEG has represented to. Charah and Charah represents to, and
covenants with and toy ARAA that: PEC and Charah have obtained all
requisite governmental permits, licenses, and. permissions relative: to
the reuse of coal combustion by-products in the performance of this
Agreement and all parts hereof; and ARAA is riot- bound by, or liable
under or pursuant to, any of this permit, license, or permission. The
North Carolina Department of Environment, and Natural Resources Permit
.No WQO`00,00Z0 for the reuse of coal 'combustion by-products by Progress 1
Energy is attached as Attachment 3; and the permit, license., and per-
mission shall, remain in full ,force and effect .during the performance }
of this Agreement and such additional. time period(s) as may be. re-
quired thereby or- by any .law, rule, or regulation.
i
4. Charah represents to, and covenants with and to, ARAA that. it j
has the equipment, personnel-, experience, and knowledge to timely,
correctly, and safely perform this Agreement.
a. ARAA shall pay to Charah only the consideration .specified in.
Attachment 4. No other compensation 'or consideration shall be ,owed. or
paid by ARAA to P.EC and/or Charah.
2 94.46

t 1
t
i
5. All of the representations and. .covenants 'set forth in, or in- j
corporated ;into, this Agreement shall be perpetual and shall continue
in full force: and effect,- 'even after,. for example, the performance he-
reof,-
. .b_y._each panty,-hereto- -or ..the -early- -termina-ti.on-_(.i.f-,a-n-y-)- -of--this_
Agreement (including, but not. limited to, the termination hereof by
ARAA pursuant to Paragraph 7 below) .
7. ARAA shall have the absolute right, in its sole discretion,
to terminate, this Agreement at any time., and for any reason or no rea-
son, and such termination shall become effective thirty days after -to-
t.ice of the termination has been served by ARAA upon Charah. In the
event of such a termination or a termination pursuant. to Paragraph 14
below; ARAA shall pay Charah for only the work performed up to and in
cluding the effective, date of the termination; and. there shall be no
other payment, whether for loss of future or anticipated profits or
otherwise.
8. 'The insurance and, bonding requirements for Charah are set
forth in Attachment 5.
'9_ The parties hereto have entered into :this Agreement solely
:for their respective benefits, except for any interests which the City
of Asheville, the County of Buncombe and/or another governmental enti-
ty may now or hereafter have.
10. This Agreement shall not be "construed -more strictly against
either of the parties hereto.
i
11. This Agreement is made and entered into in the County of i
Buncombe, State. of North Carolina, and North Carolina laws- shall go-
vern and apply to this Agreement:
12. if any of the terms, provisions, representations, or cove-
i
nants, -or, any portion 'thereof, of this Agreement shall contravene or
be invalid under the laws or regulations of the. State of North Caroli-
na or the United States of Aire-rica:, or any of their respective agen-
ces, departments, or subdivisions, such contravention or invalidity
shall not invalidate the whole Agreement, but this Agreement shall be
construed as if not containing the particular term, provision, repre-
sentation, or covenant, or portion thereof, held to be. in contraven-
tion or invalid, and the rights and obligations of the parties hereto !
shall be construed accordingly.
13. All notices shall be in writing and shall be deemed properly
served only when mailed to the party directed at the address or ad-
dresses s,et forth in. Attachment 6 or at such Other `address or ad-
dresses as, may be designated in` writing. Service ,by mail shall be
complete upon deposit of the notice enclosed in a post-paid, properly
addressed wrapper in a post office or official depository under the:
exclusive custody of the. United States Postal Service:. The wrapper
shall be sent -by certified mail, with a return receipt requested.
3'- 9446

[
f
3
14. I'f either party hereto is prohibited or prevented from per-
forming this Agreement, or any part hereof, due to a failure to ob-
tain, receive, or -retain. 'in full force and effect all required. li
_tenses, _permits,-_a:nd._permis-s_ions_.from the-.appropriate_ _regulatory_age.n
ties, or due to a cause beyond its control, such as- an Act of God, an
-order or judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction, or a govern-
mental order or directive, such party may terminate this Agreement by
serving the other party with a notice ten days prior to the effective
date of the termination.. In, addition, this Agreement is subject to
termination at anytime by emergency or security demand or demands of
the United States of America or any of its agencies; departments, or
subdivisions. (including., but -not limited to, any of its military
i
branches, the Department of Homeland Security, or the Federal Aviation
Administration) .
15. It is the intent of the parties hereto that this Agreement
shall be executed under seal and shall thereby be considered a sealed
document. it is further the intent of the parties hereto that this
Agreement shall not be a confidential or privileged document, and it
shall be considered a public record.
16: This Agreement may not be transferred :or assigned by either
of the parties hereto with the exception that ARAA may transfer or as- C
sign this Agreement to the City of Asheville, the County of Buncombe, i
or any other governmental entity.
i
In Witness Whereof, this Agreement has been duly executed under seal
and. -in duplicate (so that each party hereto will have a fully executed
I
copy hereof)-, as of the date first above written.
i
Attested. by . Asheville Regional Airport Authcr'ty
_a
By
Title; ( &MI , ass.1 Airport Director
f
5.eal:
S
Z
Attested by: Charah Inc.
Title; !V7 P Title:
seal,: !
4 9446
I

c _
p
t
a {
hw u
fl
co
t •
rn 1 t � a �•, �'` j'
D
9 � �
PROJECT SITE — ATTAC,HMENT 1
ASHEVILLE REGIONAL AIRPORT
;a NOT TO SCALE
i

4
ARAA I,Charah_Aareement_-.Attachment 2
Operating Plan forAsheVilie°Reglonal Alro&t�"Phase I Structural Fill Ouerat ons
Charah shall be fully responsible for all areas of the;project site, beginning with i
Structural Fill Prerftr inary Construction,through the Structural Fiil'Clcsure Operations:as
referenced`in this Attachment 2
Structural',Fill-Preliminary Construction:
1. At the.conclusion of the clearing and grubbing adtivitie's-(under separate contract by
ARAA),,Charah will°prepare the.fill area for liner installation per the liner subgrade.
specifications, The site prep_aration.will include grading,lhe.area to drain tolhe north I
2 U an coin I t on�of al the soil.
p g
p ' p preliminary dirtwork operations and drainage pipe installation;
Charah will install,two speCif d types_of-geOSynthetiC clay liners to the,area to be,
filled, Clay max 20013 or similar`will be applied to areas having little ta.no'slope while
Bentomat CL or sirnilarwill be installed:on all sloped areas: Joyce Engineering out
f Rich nbad, Virginia has been.contracted by Charah to provide engineering design
-and'oversight"for the liner installation project(finer design and'installation.details to
be provided by-Charah): g
-a. C,harah,will upgrade tha routes of ingress and egress,within the-airport.property (at s
Charah expense, This=site.preparation wilt include widening,the entrance road in
approxiMately'three places to allow for trucks to meet on the narrow road-along with
potential modifiications,to,the lencingaround the south and west sides of the fill i
areas. Th.,e primary.`entrance gate on Pinner Road may also bewidened for
Additional safety purposes.Ai[airport roads,, fences and gates shall`be)inspected `
and the.conditions documented prior to Charah mobili'tatloh. Charah shall be �
responsible for returning ARANroads,fences and gates to pre-operation:state once
operations.are completed.
4; Charah-will install and maintain all erosion-and.sedimentation control measures,per
theapproved NCDENR permits throughout the duration;of'operations.
Structural Fill Dailv Gperations
1 Ash fill.will ,be delivered to tthe=airport site from the Asheville Power Station using the,
route"that-begins-with the trucks weaving the rear entrance of the,power plant onto.
New Rockwood Road, proceeding to Glenn,Bridge Road, crossing undeffhe
interstate and turning left onto Piriner Road. The..airp`ort ptoperty wiil,.be accessed
from Pinner Road 2. Gharah-will station an employee'at the:gated entrance to the
airport site from.Pinners.Road to ensure:that,only project related traffic is allowed,
entrance into the airport`facilify:
3 Charah will receive,the:dump trucks onto the fill'site and will;use-up to two bulldozers
:and one smooth drum vibratory compactor to place and compact ash in twa-foot.
thick lifts..
I

e
4 Compaction"testing,will`be.,completed biweekly'to,ensure compaction of the rnaterlal
to no less than 95% of standard modified proctor All compaction testing resutts:will
be fotwarded to,AaAA,ARAA reserves the r`ighi#to conduct additional testing and/or
uaNdate°Charah-testing-,as-deemed rrecessa v r
5. Storm:water will be directed from the fili area irito-the.collection basin(s) as required"
per the NCDENR. approved erosion_and sedimenfation plan,(NCOEN'R permit
approvaC to be provideO by ARM through UWK,Dickson-of Charlottes NC)
6. All erosion control facilities Will be checked.daily`for'drop-er woi�c�ng,order and
immediately upon the;conclusion of any'rain evefit in accordance with,NCt)ENR,
approved erosion and,,sedirrmentation°plan I
7;; Charah will;conduct=dust`control operations:atthe site°using a;water°truck#o
eliminate-b itivedu"stir g.
8. Daily operating hours will be.approximatelp 7 a.m::'to 4 p.m. Monday.=through Friday
,Structural FilhClosure Operations:
1 Upon completlon'of Phase 1.activities, Charah:wifl.oversee or.place and compact
imparters topto`ll to prop de the.structural-fill cap'at the tFiickness designed by the.' i
airparf s.engineer ng company(to be bid byARAA):
2. The toil cap wifl be seeded and mulched according to seeding specifications (to be
bid..by ARAA).
L f
.Operators,Communications &°Msc.:
'1.° Charah wiq employ"one site:manager to,be the,primary point of corttact for Charah-at. "
th'e'airport'site: Thi.a'sitpolmanager,will be eduipped`witha mobile.office facility;
mobile telephone, iaptop, Internet access,,-radio qndo. Irother q6mm, unIcdtIpn,
equipment`-asnecessary. Tfireefo.fouiadditional'`eq'uipment"operr; torswill'be
employed atfhe.site fo 'coniptetion ofthe vinork:
2> Charah`will-establish a,p.0intofcontactwithfn tl e:airportstaff;,at'the„airport's`
discretion,'that will be made aware daily of,Charah's-scheduling and presence-at the
site.
I With:permission from the airport,"Charah.will utilize a small°fuel lank to be.placed on-
-siteIn.accordance with site regulations- The tank w.1 be double walled br,proper; ,
containment.
4. Charah to'be responsible for all other rely 0d permits (i<e building permit for mobile
office;if°.needed„and'any permits needed far temporary fuel storage, etc.),

�
-
°
^
A copy of Northroling Department of Environment and
,-Q_--- . QOO00020, Abr,th6-_n _ r__-- of by-
products
PEC fWlows�as Attachment 3\
�
_
^
-
�
�
-
�
�
�
`
°
'

1 e . 1 1 ■ ■
7 e ( /a fq `�a ` � � � � r r l' li/ ,✓q\ ice/ r
l�ll,\ <<un
`y�r
1�!'Il �/�/(����'rry � ? ��i- I {� � t k-''�•' \"��(,y'�p �1� ! �1 ,�q�4e �}f��h"�i.�'��,t 9
q�yr �t 'C�r
i 11�` NMI,
i \\U�! IY-
:4rr•'' M\
•ail{�'_��ll/�ll�� ((�r �'�'`��`--_��`��� � �1' ��:�,!\�I ®�r� `��l((l�� �;\��r���"�-�'i:.���•^
�- � rlcc(��,ti III l +.t����..��^.\ � ► '' �i� �`1 ��l,r`n�,rr�,����� � ��1�J��� .,.,
:.`���\ ���' � ! rim Q �1 i 9� \ �r • 1k �;r=•'-.r���ry ••1 �� ,_
r
�° �,,�f`l�llC�711�1111►��-��� _ ���1111.�1��, .A\Tt.����►���� r�\U���..1�;11��`?,. a� ����.���
°'!11 --_-.•� Yam/ �� ����:... -^' � �tt., \ � `�7i► f'.. ��.9 a`-� v
NINE
01
RE
r� 9 ..� ,��' �� \ � � � �� 1�1\\\ `. ��jt1�U\!!'-�aa�..��_777s��-��1���iS���!►r;��l���`l@�aIng
.ez`'�:
MIR
�.�
AU
1111111 i"/fi,� _ �� �_ ���—'•1�E�!�; . � ��h� \:C►�� ������i,r�f\.17If/f �
NEW
flow
�t r.. ie� � � �� o u,•,. �� w
\I
l 1 i

ACCESS AGREEMENT
THIS ACCESS AGREEMENT("Agreement')is made and entered M of February 29, 20. 6
("Effective Date'),by and.amorigthe Greater Asheville.Regional Airport Authority, a body.corporate and
politic'("GARAA") with an address:at 61 Terminal Drive Suite'l,Fletcher,NC 28732,;DukeiEnergy
Progress,.LLC,a North,Carolina limited liability corn any Ukja Carolina Power&;Light"Company d/b/a
ProgressEnergy Carolinas,Inc,.("DEP") with an address at;550 S,Tryon Street,Charlotte,NC 218202,
and Charah,Inc.,a Kentucky corporation("!Chqralf')'witb'an address at12601 Plantside Drive,
Louisville, Kentucky 40299
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the Asheville Regional Airport Authority ("ARAA'), and. Charah entered into. an
Agreement darted November 6,.,2007, which agreement was amended.by the ARAA and Charah on or
about May 21,2009 by Amendment No., I and was amended by the ARAA and Charah,on or about June
29,'200.9 by Amendment No. 2 (as amended,the "Structural Fill Agreement")pursuant to which Charah,
agreed to construct structurallills ("Structural Fills") at the Asheville Regional Airport ("Airport") using
bottom'ash and fly,ash.(collectively"Ash")obtained from DEP
WHEREAS, the GARAA was.created by Session Law.2012-121,°which,was'ratified oil June 28,.
2012 by the General Assembly of North Carolina;
WHEREAS;.Paragraph 16 of the Structural.Fill Agreement provides that the ARAA may transfer
or assign the Structural Fill Agreement to " ...,any governmental.entity
WHEREAS, the Structural Fill"Agreement Was'assigned by the ARAA to the GARAA,,and such
assignment was confirmed by Charah in that document entitled Confirmation of Assignment,Conveyance
and Transfer("'Confirmation");-

V/1-119REAS, PEP and Charah entered,into an Ash Reclamation Contract 1,007
dated June. 18, 2
Pursuant to which DEP supplied.andCharah accepted Ash used"for.the PbVoses-of,the,Structural Pill at
the Airportref6rred to as"Area:I",(as'ameftded 6nJune.19, 2007,'M4y 4,10,09 and July 1,2009,the"Area
I Supply Agreement");
WHEREAS, DEP and Charah entered into -,an Area TV Asti Reclamation Con.fract dated.
September 30, 20110,pursuant to,which,]DER supplied and Charah accepted Ash used for the purposes Of
the Structural Fill at the.Airport refer
red to•as '-Area IV" (as amended-On July 1.6, 2010 and August IS,
.201.1;tha"Area.IV Supply Agreement");
WHEREAS, DEP and Charah entered into an Area 1111 Ash Reclamation Contract dated January
tl, M18 pursuant to Which DEP supplied .and Chardh accepted Ash used for the purposes offfie-
Stritclural Fill at the Airport referred to as"`Area III",(as amended on.february 12; 2015 the "Ar"AreaRT_
Supply Agreement" and collectivefy with the Area Supply Agreement and Area:1V Supply Agreement
referred to as the"Supply Agreementg");
WHEREAS; pursuant to the Structural Fill.Agreement, Charah has:qompleted Structural Fills in
Areas 1., 111,andlV at the Airport,"as.defined:in the Structural Fill Agreement C'ClosedStructural Fills");
WHEREAS, the construction of Structural Fills.in Area H at th
e Airport has not been contracted,
for-and,,neither its operation norclosureor post-closure is covered by this Agreement:
is
WHEREAS, Ash.from DEP's Ashe-villo Plant was 'utilized in-the,,Closed.Structural Fills, at the'
Airport pursuant toDEP's Distribution of Residual Solids (DORS) pernlit (WQ0000020)'issued by the
North Carol.ima DepAtiffient of Eii'virombient and Natural Resources [now Department of Environmental
Quality(DPQ)] dn,Fe btuary lb,2006,;
2

WHEREAS, the DORS, permit was superseded by Permit WQ0000020 issued.to DEP for the
Structural Fill.Projects at the.Airport on September'2, 2015 (the."`CCP Structural Fill Permit") atiached
herewith;
WHEREAS,the;CCP Structural Fill Perinit issued to DEP requires it to preparerand maintain,an
Operations and Maintenance ,Plan for the StfudIturdl Fills at the,Airport; install and regularly monitor
groundwater monitoring wells at such Structural Fills.and regularly inspect and report on groundwater
conditions at the moni:tor'ing wells"and physical conditions at the:Structural Fills;,and
WHEREAS,,.DEP will requiie access to the Airport.property to fulfil] its permit obligations for
'the term of.the CCP Structural'Fi ll Permit;
NOW, THEREFORE; GARAA, DEP'and Charah.wish to set forth the obligations of the parties
relating,to post-closure monitoring and responsibilities for tlie:Closed Structural Fills...
AGREEMENTS:
:
Iit consideration of the.mutual covenants- and agreementsHerein contained, 'the parties hereto
warrant.and agree as follows:
1
I. DEP's Obligations. 'Notwithstanding anything in the Structural Fill Agreement or the Supply �
Agreercients io the contrary, DEP agrees that upon the Effective Date of this Agreement, DEP
will be responsible fp complying,with all air, soil,'groundwater or,other monitdring,sampling, or.
.reporting.requirements for the Closed Structural.Fills, as specified in the CCP Structural Fill''
r
Permit and for the period covered by the CCP Structural Fill Permit or for such longer period as,
Such ermittina monitorin sampling,,' closure or reporting may be re uired under a livable law`
P a� g�. P g y q Pp
or by NCDEQ,,or other government agency having jurisdiction.,As'between GARAA and DEP,
DEP will] bear the cost and expense of complying with the CCP Structural Fill Permit. DEP
agrees- to provide notice to the GARAA of any condition identified during its inspections
3

potentially reflecting a variance from the closure obligations, under theCC-P Structural Fill
Permit, and DEP Will notify the.GARAA prior,to providing any time sensitive notifications to
,applicable agencies of any such condition.
,2, GARAA's Obligations. Continuing after. the Effective Date of this Agreement, GAR-AA shall be
gr
responsible for the upkeep of the.surface of the sites where the Closed Structural Fills have been
constructed, to include without firnitation, regulafty cutting the grass, at. the sites, control of
woody vegetation :along the cap and side slopes of the structural. fill cells, erosion Moftitoriha
control,and repair as well as provision of security. GARAA will not conduct or otherwise permit
or� allow an.y third party to_ construct, drill or otherwi'se' establish any private or-public water
supply' wells within the compliance boundary of the Closed Structural Fills or within 100 feet
outside the perimeter thereof. If construction, drillingd or excavation on or adjacent to the sites
Where the Closed Structural Fills,are located is planned, GARAA will first(i) pfovide-DEP with
prior written notice of. such
p ' proposed activities and (ii) provide at 0EP's expense such
documents, plan s, and Specifications as may, be reasonably re
quested by DEP to determine the,
scope oUsAbli proposed-activities. Prior written notice is provided without right of approval..
GARAA agrees that it will provide notice of the existence and the location of the Closed
Structural Fills to:all third parties per-forming services for GARAA in the vicinity of the Closed
Structural Fills excluding DEP and Charah. GARAA also.agrees to.assure,right of entry by the
partieg heieto and the state for the apurpases of the Structural Fill Permit and inspection,
monitoring and compliance therewith subject to all GARAA access and security 'procedures.
n
GARAA further agrees to provide DEP And Charah with copies of all relevant notices of
nonconformance, noncompliance and,other notices relating to the Structural,Pills.at the Airport
and copies Of all audits or -other documents that were provided' to, GARAA I pi - - I , relating to the
Structural Fills.
Charah's Qbl afions. Nothing in this Agreement in any way relieves or will be,interpreted or-
construed to relieve Charah from any obligations Charah has.to GARAA.under the Structural., ill
4

Agreement and.Charah acknowledges and hereby reaffirms such obligations. Nothing in this
Agreement in any way relieves or will be interpreted or construed tor relieve Charah -from any
obligations Charah has to DEP under the Supply Agreements and Clarali acknowledges and;
hereby reaffirms such obligations: Charah will :complete all surface;restoration to, address
existing; erosion conditions in. Areas I, III and IV at the Airport to enable the GARAA to
undertake routine ongoing maintenance for these areas_ Upon Charah's completion of such
'surface'restoration, Charah will notify GARAA in writing and GARAA agrees to advise Charah
in writing promptly thereafter, whether GARAA believes, any additional. surface restoration :is
necessary to.address existing.erasion:conditions in Areas:I, III and IV to enable the GARAA to
undertake routine ongoing maintenance for these areas.
4. Right 'of Access, Commencing with the execution of this Agreement and continuing-until all E
obligations of DEP and Charah are completed under the provisions of this Agreement, the Supply
f
Agreements and the,Structural Fill Agreements, GARAA,hereby agrees`to provide DEP and
Charah, as applicable,,with timely access to those areas, within the airport:t necessary for (a5'DEP
to.fulfill its monitoring, inspection and any other obligations under the Structural Fill Permit and
3
.any permits subsequently issued and.(b)Charah to fulfill.its obligations under this Agreement,the
Supply Agreements and. the,Structural Fill.Agreements, .Charah.or DEP,.as`applicable, agree;it
_ 1.
will(i) provide to"GARAA.reasonable,advance notice;of the monitoring and-inspection schedule
,and any other access reasonably needed by such party for the purposes of compliance. and
remediation as contemplated under this Agreement; (ii) will. participate in,applicable safety'and'
security training as may, be required by GARAA and/or'-the Airport; and (iii), will observe all
applicable safety and security reguirements of the GARAA while-on Airport property.
S. Term. This Agieernent, shall cominerite on the Effective Date and will continue,°until the.
expiration of Permit No. WQ0000020 or such, later date as may be required to complete the
monitoring, sampling, closure, or other actions required pursuant'to this Agreement. DEP will
5

perform groundwater monitoring for,a period of twenty years or until the expiration of Permit No..
WQ0000020,whichever occurs later.
6.. Relationship of the Parties. Nothing in this Agreement,will confer or be interpreted_or construed
to confer any relationship between GARAA and DEP for the purposes of the Structural Fill
Agreement and/or the -Supply Agreements. Nothing in. this Agreement wii1 confer or be-
-interpreted or construed to confer any relationship be Charah and DEP for the purposes of
the'Structural Fill Agreement. For the avoidance.of doubt, .(i) the Structural Fill Agreemenitis
i
made for the benefit of the parties thereto'only and no;other person Js intended as a beneficiary of
i the Structural Fill Agreement in any respect and (ii) the Supply Agreements is made for the �
i
benefit of the parties thereto.only and`no other, person is intended as a beneficiary of the Supply
Agreements in any respect.
Amendments and Waivers. Any term of this Agreement may be amended or waived only with
the written consent of the parties; which, consent,must be signed and dated by an, authorized
officer of each party< Any 'waiver, if any, will be strictly limited to the purposes, extent and
duration for which such waiver was expressly given:
8. Assignment. Except to an.entity that succeeds to all or substantially all,of the-assets or business
, of a party, no party may assign or delegate any part or_all of this Agreement without the prior
written-consent, of each other party hereto and any attempt to &,so shall be void with t1e
exception that GARAA may transfer or assign this.agreement to the City of Asheville;the County
of Buncombe or any other governmental entity.. Subject. to the foregoing, this Agreement is
binding upon the panties and their permitted successors and assignees:
9.1 Severab litV; If one or more provisions of this Agreement are held to be unenforceable under`
applicable law, then such provision shall be excluded from this Agreement, the balance of the
1 -
6,
E
i

Agreement:shall be interpreted as if such provision were .so excluded and the balance of the
Agreement shall be enforceable in accordance with.its-terms.
10. Notices. Any notice required or permitted by this. Agreement shall be in writing and shall be
deers ed sufficient upon receipt,when delivered (t),personally„(ii) by an industry recognized and
reputable delivery service (such as Federal Express or UPS), (iii) by err' il, provided a copy S
also sent via U.S. mail as certified or registered mail with postage prepaid,or(iv)'by U.S.inail as
certified or registered mail with postage prepaid (and not sent via any of the other means
identified in subparts(i)-(iii) above), if such notice is addressed to the party to be notified at such
par'ty's address as set forth .herein or as' subsequently modified by written notice. The email
address for GARAA shall be the then current Executive Director's email address. All notices to
GARAA shall be to the attention of Executive° Director.. All notices to DEP shall be to the
attention of the Vice President, Coal Combustion Products ,Operations and Maintenance. All
notices to.Charah shall be to the attention of the President and Chief Executive'Officer.
1,1. Choice of'Law; Jurisdiction. The Taws of the state of North Carolina shall govern the validity,
interpretation, construction, and performance of this Agreement, without giving effect to the
principles of conflict of hews.
12. Signatories. GARAA.represents and warrants to each of. Charali and DEP that (a) the person or
persons executing this Agreement on `behalf of GARAA is duly authorized to execute this.
Agreement and to bind GARAA and its successors and assigns.to .the terms, conditions and
obligations hereof. Likewise,.each of Charah and DEP,on.its own behalf and not of behalf of the
other party, represent and warrant to GARAA that (a) the person executing this Agreement on
behalf of-Charah and DEP,is duly authorized to'execute.this Agreement and to bind Charah and
DEP,.and their successors and.assigns to the terms,.conditions and obligations hereof.
fThe balance of this pie intentionally_left blank.l
7

r 1
t
The parties have executed this Agreement on the respective dates set forth below.
Duke Energy Progress,LLC Greater AsheviIIe Regional Airport Authority
By: By:
Name: 13 thjA R- "615KA!3?- Name: 1±&� ��e-z w• j.s
Title:-VP CcP qtM
Date:_ ��2s f 2011� Date i L,.
Charah,Inc:
By:
Name: Charles E.Price
Title: President and CEO
Date: " z — f
1
11
1
I
1
I
{
I
1
g.
{I
1

Laverty, Brett
From: Laverty, Brett
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 12:27 PM
To: 'Toepfer, John R'
Cc: Pickett, Matt; Nordgren, Scott R.; Weisker, Brian R; McNash, James-geosyntec; Damasceno,
Victor-Geosyntec; Sullivan, Ed M; Czop, Ryan; Davidson, Landon
([e-mail]); Frost, Larry; Wooten, Rick
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Asheville Airport Area 1 -Technical Meeting Follow Up
Attachments: DSC_0021.JPG; DSC 0102.JPG; IMG-0242.JPG; DSC-0023.JPG
Victor,
Just a follow up question concerning your response.
Based on field observations, the scarp near the toe along cross-section B is considered surficial and likely runs
within the final cover or along the cover/CCR interface. If the scarp had been within the CCR, Geosyntec would
likely have seen evidence of CCR near the toe of the failure during our field inspection; however, this was.not
the case.
Attached are photos of the scarp prior to the temporary patch at Area 1. It is my understanding that Geosysntec did not
arrive on site until after the temporary patch was put in place. On September 8th and 15th, coal ash was visible within the
scarp face at several locations. Discharges of liquefied coal ash were also visible downgradient of the scarp. Some of the
discharging coal ash made it as far as the edge of the stormwater basin at the base of the east cell.
Does your perception of a shallow failure change knowing that CCR was present at the toe of the failure and discharging
from the scarp face?
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
N'"
<� <r' " othing 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:Toepfer,John R [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, May 18, 201811:39 AM
To: Laverty, Brett<[e-mail]>
1

Cc: Pickett, Matt<[e-mail]>; Nordgren,Scott R. <Scott.Noi-d`'[e-mail]>; Weisker,
Brian R<[e-mail]>; McNash,James-geosyntec<[e-mail]>; Damasceno,Victor
-Geosyntec<[e-mail]>; Sullivan, Ed M<[e-mail]>;Czop, Ryan
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE:Asheville Airport Area 1-Technical Meeting Follow Up
"CALITION, Externalemail. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified.Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Brett—attached is a memo from Geosyntec to address your questions below. I also attach the corrected version of the
spreadsheet with the surveying results, piezometer data, etc. Please let me know of questions. 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
From: Laverty, Brett [mailto:brett.lavert (COncdenr.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 11:46 AM
To: Damasceno, Victor-Geosyntec; McNash, James -geosyntec
Cc: Toepfer, John R; Wooten, Rick; Davidson, Landon
Subject: Asheville Airport Area 1 -Technical Meeting Follow Up
Exercise caution. This is an EXTERNAL email. ®O NOT open
attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected
email.
Victor,
I appreciate your comments at yesterday's technical meeting for the Asheville Airport CCP fill at Area 1. 1 would like to
follow up with you on two items discussed at the meeting.
I recommended that some type of remote sensing,such as electrical resistivity, be used to probe the structural fill in lieu
of drilling additional piezometers. You countered by saying the elevated specific conductivity of the coal ash leachate (-
950 uS/cm)would essentially trap the electrical current resulting in an unreliable resistivity model. Prior to my current
position, I worked in the Ohio coal fields reclaiming abandoned surface and underground coal mines. One of the projects
I worked on was a 135-acre valley-fill containing mining waste (e.g., sulfide minerals&coal fines).We used electrical
resistivity surveys to probe the valley fill.The resistivity models successfully delineated the fill material, underlying
bedrock,and previously unknown underground mines (see attached).The specific conductivity of the groundwater in
the vicinity of the attached survey array was approximately 4,000 uS/cm. My experience is that electrical resistivity can
be effectively used in areas with elevated specific conductivity.
We had lengthy discussion on the 34 degree friction angle that was'used to model the stability of the CCP.You indicated
the estimated friction angle of the CCP was somewhat validated by the fact the stability model reproduced the shallow
2 Y

veneer failure between the soil cap/coal ash interface along cross section B. Is the modeled veneer failure along cross-
section B due to the CCP friction angle or is it due to the friction angle of the soil cap (e.g., 30 degrees)? Is 34 degrees
valid as a lower bounding value for the friction angle of CCP along the toe where there is saturated conditions and
minimal compaction and overburden pressures?
I would appreciate a response as soon as your able.
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 rtyCa?ncdenr.gov
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778
w` - -- 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.
3

-I �� *1!i`` p� 3 "7��f'k ,• ,�5+�'{��n , �f'Frtr�p � �'•'-,�'� ni glot e., ���c.".0>' s ��} r r r, `�+�.'�s,'�•R';p��-• sl'7: ,.:� ,� :F
� -{` yad h. y�3 is ,. .h P'�. �� g, }9lJr1Y\•. 'tl� '�{a ��` rQ,l+i �. SI r(y'�trc,�. a S!�� ,reef ��ar+„�`� 1- ! "t� ( Y�+,�,t "Y '
�x•,'t�•> t, �..` �,;�y>_ k ' ��?f �` 6 •c?���� ��'p`'- �,�' �,� ,�: 1!�$ ;a,; y1Mn,�-. r �, y�,, `�, �^, •f•; ����` •,s�.
�. ,_ �"� t' 1 „A F S ♦„,` �'';,NFv •e�fi E!.'. . 7 �' ����� ��` �`�{,`t�: '�� .i ,� ������' � i� .V,� C tp o! ,.{'
� ���� i.�+��*' it,.�^.p�«:,''a! �+�rs'•!`-"'7 a"��' ��`t, �.� C4y F 4���t1t'..e ,1�I�,��t'�s;`��.r�'�.ry ti ,���'�, Y to + ^`��. �9_ I.;�y ,�• �1; ". �, P,
.JI:2;� --t"51� ��,�,3�``.f`5`,C �'�' �ff t '•�� ♦�4 tt Yl. ��,.�{{ �,gg{{,, �.J '+F ,�. \ \ ,[`, �A+4 '�,�. r.
'•*: r�, " ?y L ,c�t�' ,tfi,� >tp.I�``i�'i`Jf x��u�k'�5�"a",�s�*''�,�\.. of� '";� �-,f� 1',, 1•j"�Ye'114e �$ ° cgs!.k�'^`\ L \�!'"d'. t {°7 � ; -,/ � ! It,• ?q
�, ,�t�!M �fC9, �1. r' 9,� (t!'�� `•.+b1,$kwt n i.� ?1�� •�a a �i •, •c�;�� 1„'� �e � �J
3p •"'�� - !! _"C3'"�"�..."i '''a-t �T rt:..N �1. ,'�, ,? a\ �e, 't'�\�m �".�3 �� �er �,1 gti!' , , •�,��` .�u!`
n _,.°.`.�,` y.,� "t.}•tKn .hh�3Y,+�e..�ir,.�:t. fi�4 �S ��!.�1•♦�;+• 3 _(fur �♦ .jt4� 7 �.�. \W/}! ` SrY .1�{1-`�;� � t^.
\: ''4..�`� ��: P?kA•y 4' `\�\;' 'v. t .. .i:,"��y. S''.. Y 1)��!�' S �v r `+.�.�a;�.�. � •�'t { b�' ty P" 2) ,„ ,�.. `r,i +�J• 4r t
"".cl �ITn '\.,. F� � 't>� "•C'� �>��,,,lt* � �4.x 1 .,
\.fit S v ..i`��+� 'e�bjV.�,� "y .•A �.� f ,,� ��e� .11 �-Yi'
...Y.,:t a��;E., , 1T, 7A7�ktif tie�y �9 • C �� R♦.♦ t '°"t R:.. Le - 4 "dt;
•,�...y j�K v� r T]'f;I�•`'•v, ;,',5.; 'S '�a, .,r�ygi,.+:S f... �e '��`. 'l•al�:' n.. �uT'cr i '•� '! � - `�. i; •�.. ' `M1?- .� !! yg....
v'�.r,.ry,1'�->��3. ��:,`�� '�11, `ae�", ,;�,.,c?n`� -�.�•Y�t� 7f/�9I�'
�L��,� '�"�.�"„=a, �i�s"'s�+' ail 'h ` �: t`•,.i'���'r�?�J`�rgy`�` ` �'�'*`, o,, '� G ''r 1'a�+6 � ' , fit � i � cE( •�� �s � d !9;,.
. 's^ 'ti.><`y {> r`�!�'� EE-� �, "° F �� P i ,I i �.t�,. ! �'in�' 14� � �• �}♦. �•��i a.;• _ �~ '� � .�, 1`. -°►',,
1 �• «Hti -t.^,�` �C` ;�{ •' _. "L 4. 'a �T,�Yh<. �•��. "r� .t.: "T tC."'r',r :� „a .k� f{. aF �' t •t tt�' �+ CY'. u"' y� �. .m3�
w
& � �� }, r Ct�.I '��J 3•Ka,�t � .�--•� •�g �P �,a� "s_w:a Y ," � ,��+. o a �a�,; +�' ,� ';�„ r r-
�^
's,`s'�`'"t�i": �, a i�P`ed � �:� o y;r T.e• ,.�G .y'V�.�l$1 'ia '� ��<y 1F-.^ 1,!�,�c � k�1 ``r 't t� .,,�. ° ,� I"it"..:` 'S 5 ��''�.,"�.
`�;1 pt;.. �w..Lt ��•�, `� a'6',i,.'. 7"`'„� �,Sr���jj �°S .� ��j�,�-.�._ q r' vl (.�. t .t: - V 'Rf l
��• `'1y•Fv� �kx �iy7� h��-;',i. ...,!-� RA n t,�.,♦ '# ��,Iw i � 4 �r i' �r. {� �r � ,-� .'" ', c.. .�� r,�''� u
'� a �.:'r aj'`t�`•� �'fe-i t ��� �iyw':�� ^may .1 `�} p�p((r . , t ��q , 4 �A H{.g.`'\ f `r�ry"�,�a��_> .•�yX �_ 1 73'•P �!.1,... . �'
fi,,- �',,":.l ti- >�•Y��,' w .`k,�� �i' .�'+.�,F�''.� 6 S; t ti� ,F'�9 ,'t "�� .J'"K � �y�?r ^-a�;: " �'..
(:a•�'&s. t- �1, tl. �"i .' bV.tr ' ��E.� � � �1'. �a.� � �4+ /`:: Fu$ d',.�� �- :T?„• .,��!i�y., � "� 9 `."�"sx „�.. 1
� -t-t`sr�K.+{� 1�����""' .. C+=".Q, _ � -: �\ �+�°,��rL{t�• ` ,'>+"� a r F. �f.�� :�`, .g ' T F ��• �p{�ae_" _ .�, +..>� eAP`'g,�'�;4,� ( _
�-� � �^t �' �4� ��`E�i p 31„�...'�'.A � 1.•t � .`L .`7 ,7�' j �`r _ i v �H..�f C
c �.,t'��ix ,rei•-may .''�1.. OF-a. ��,,`''�j,, ,�r."'V'.�k.:s• ,� .;�t�}a tx5 fI ,�. ,��t, vV,` ;�� `a r�
`�F`'�1• "��}1 -��•• ? ( 'IP fg 7 S`�" k t�• 'd \ +4 i i; s �rye� •'r�",T yc
. ° ♦ a is {��,ry` u. l f r?`� ,+2?? G a h d, '`
.��'....t?'".- � 1.wR f � �• !!',(� � � :d l� ��L�, ,'� � Y�,'7� •Et :.�e yA�f.�g� \`;, �- ��4 .^�, �} - •� + 5 ..'.� J rD-s.
��')' •� "�F� ` �,�, �_.\�i J. +y�•, L CF��� ��� � ..}). � ��� �tTY' I� .""(ram k � ,�'t Y�� 4t y=.' >4 T�o'{�.
.;fig� ��`..\ �t. ��-��-b°(��. qs ��i �� �..dvsm s;d.�:��. •w�� � �'� � 'S 1 l 3'� T�x��-.T. - /•�� 'f�i�i ^"�� -'`-
, ; "y.?T` -'v \ m ,y � 4�7�/Q�',f �y� ti (� �K � '� 1 t .�� .r A a�`i�� } ." 6', •a ���`y°IY, � �
,
'.'Tw> ! 1t �Jj�'J'* 4 •. ! l., �Yl 6 § j. ° ,.1'n-f'�'/"l'„?..r ;13' �':,0.y`, I••a.
.'p `C -� L`�Qa'-.t%.J. �w�„' �i+' .•i /'�''jeP, ,.,rr� (. F�+i r�, +�...,. ti'.fjl, t .fi3 ;'^{''�+.�' i •s.°,+.ti'/%l w.e,> ♦
� ,. '�;�U+'3's�5/b ��� �� r�i t'r .�'�i'rr ����,��f�`� -�`i"" �� •a; k,°• c. � .y yr s y. � �,,,r:n,;r1.•�`CEt w
£y "• �',��,_,� �i. - '�+�'3'se?r'. •�,rx a��/r k,• y � { rq'P {�,��' �� /�-"`�,1 c, ft,�tn r.'�,�,��`R �" t.
h'Kr� ,,�,'�` ����,�{.>;� Q��r rf+�t5>�'-�,.tv �"y��.r•= °r /-k� ?* o� ,:'3 a �!.r{�,gar' �a � .. �,�� �' P uY •Cif,• r`'��i}�1g'� -�• �'�'`c) �•_
♦ 4 i
"la1 v 'y'(. -.�'....� l ,• ! •11 `" p ••q ' \
i �
_ , '���.tvfP� 1}X e l��y ��^`' !C "4 •'.Prrr'th. y - ''�" ,,, . "1 T�
_ �. �'�i yi.1�1.- V�.'1" I Pt^�.� �'}\C�44,t ��' � �`'� •1'.-'�`y [• Y a ; .,�, � ✓R
,.s. ywrt , 6. 'i ��r• h � ! ''rs•aa'), i" ?,n: \ t w.. _
���~� a 'y �. �.� S1 �J. ���� �_t• - +.°tirT�_."Q♦ ti ��, o,y.. � u �, ® ( E.,�}J r F �` � ,";\
v � !
v
x a:
Y'b
`� h '"'$.'� �•�`VT!^�j{�-� t�`��� r`: -�tp.�.tia� :'4u r F`°-.Y�� p'R"+- a
��yy t 4 ♦ L
��. � ,� ��. � a x t � \ )fir. ,•,,,:
- '°� , �/' is �'+• 3 � — L i "1»." ,.
� � ..; y. r •mac,
r
,
i

n '41'a"R �n5 1,{''F�,•sl+' r°`r,'W�� \,
. i�hFw Nick.+r jr-�.` ?�2}. •�.� 7, y �wY
} n "wg �
G 04a Ztx" 1 ` Fpe
y+r �'
S � \b� ����•11's yrk�kt,'•";.�'?t�p�.y,���Y ��t �ry *,?kc
� 7 tilb� t' "�I „�a,,� � ` .`�•\
p,�ff4,4}�!>ti,y'tia °'R ! '!lVMS WRY,
1"`l''�t °• I� L .J
,\ •\ 9-„F.`y�I�t '
1.` tY � •a d t T .,•E',f \�
' �•,Y'� �a `:,.ail"�- y+"•.:#��,j,�?�fil, i '&iTT.I "p 4 '+ `,`sir 4 .,;�' \'�i^• •\ 'p7
\ ~
t'it 6 L^ ,'`s' ?
'� v��^LIIT��_.ae� �,�.�'�`u > y ` ti ';};1, •-�' i��4-, rf,-.
�V
.�"IS �.
Ilk \ ��<It ".jr'�,i h� /u''J�a4 `1I
{ , '\ 15
, mr sVr\Ji�i '�' �•.. � 4,,r isr3 1` 'W
I
s�� W.. ' "4
�
" 1 r °3.
;.I
U 1 �>\" ;•n \ \�fir'Wf l r.,'<.. t�r -"� ;g•. •('
R J�r `� �� 1411kk` 1
sue' '� M 4 i' < ��`.x y J •.r ` yu ��T
�:-�_ � j'� rv"`� T' \�` 4 \ �, ' ;�"',I,.t\\`` t 5' 1ti��•�,,., \C>'it+' ^tr: ,yn�
il, yaii` •'
In
� 1�� +N tl-
y�4 \ T \�
�'+•t"4'�h
�� +t >��+4 4 v� +�� J inh�xs`+a �.'�M k{✓,\ "��+' r��'.� �rti'�/- �� r`"t�CJ'�'� �'I1 •tl ,1 _
��,��Is��a41 �+Sik yi t 11.eh�s� a� r' ."��' Pa'7+ �x}a )�•<�1 + �'7' / �ti1tF� � 1',� ��� t r
x�f b �\ � �. nl�? \ r�r'*�V �'wt,`'�� a�� /�1`�••+„Y'�\��4�"�u� t rf \\ ;+ �k-•a�< �z'4r.
\�s; t ,� �`�'.°`\;eta �Iln�wLx3"'ti�L'�'-����+,.t'�s ��t'1`k* ,���b��.l,�yti•.�yl r�4'fv \�v ,!.'^+�iyi ti� 6
r!
,M'S»r- ,S'.'f-"+i rl �i V'i�Y'.}✓ -.. Pr '�� r 4j,�r / ,,,G • -J``_ a ASi�. 'n '
'=.A w �• </�/,��1� �. �; s��c`37..c»f t �` �i i°7 !l�+ i if 5
��Sx *��� y—:"s, t�� •n� i S�,-cmr ,at,��,s•���i:t_ %a`-r t ¢i,��. ,,j `.[' ;�' 'i,t '`�.�•T x�}
r a' r�\.3r �� ti -.�,�.'-r->iie;—��rk�.� �1�'r`i'''���•+s{t!y�'' I� \� `'+1;-�,7�-t'.�•/��\, I i;-,g }
.'1
NIT V
jrr
it ,i7
�`�� � .� < _ 9/��� a .4 ���•�.0� 5 � - i;•r Rr1' •�-�.n-Y''.; --. _ -• ai�2e
f'• t_ i,�v�'`
./•�,.r:f\t , °meµ.£ i '('Y.� (�ca 1 i1`�`� `�fY" '3�2..'a}'� 1�..�� '°.:t.\
{rF-�,�A` 'lT;,,,
-��'+'
N.
AA_ -; a \ \ r 4Y� /� F k ip '�tt_,�,_•Yk,�' `+ mot? a.. \mil 1.
A, F-•I
,���> t/'i* ct.� ��i.ti_� ��'�5��7���,may, �.y3!��\ , \- � � '��.�. �• .- ,` e k ; t .
~_v i•� �5,ti,. r ��'tic� IFi \ c., r,,, �s+c�,,�^"yY.
t�-Fi � vfis,,� '� � /...�'l�,t�a`�/J> *j� ... l lr ids N J•k - - �.! � 'u*C P.
��'� 1�r�.
! yv�n � `�� t
4
'"Sncc, T'rr"'a4 .�
�c 1, r;• \`f' 1 c a
iaT:..r j r/r,' .x •�x;>a �t a {b ts=� �•. =y .f 4�M\, y�.1 � nl
1 -t`T �^`.
1 f ./4n '`>`r.�--•--: .ylF �'�:t rb ^w'� :. �' •o'�i�!@'S+N` �'�• I l i I \
, �c� '"i` ,''
"I;)cr3,�4< " 'f"' r�gJ,.} -a��e'��
1W c r:r N
I \ t y a as \X' a �
m � I <t > 4 rcr v r� /
�t2r �; '* � h :Y. t •�'r 1''!P I�,�� `�\'+; {Y"i 1 a\ ,_ �" \ �`" 1 If:r
}} ��,p...��#� t ',�' ass;+\'� ,, i• :; ,��"d^ � 9y '}�,.t�
`' '�.;,, ryr•_ � �a-r,U-x �/.{}�,�Q u. ` i �� ' � h' ,35'`-.\ ����iy'�^lt 't�' '�. ti v``. � t 1 � - \
tr \'*'' IJ�kC r yl`'c
j F a_../ tt, •,� ^-y L1 r�^,+.� L1ri' r�
n Fly,
`''. .fl� ; . •Y' �S ; w ��:,'..1 q ":. i S fN .h \ ;�j:N 9 ,5 , •}� ,rP'GR� ,i. .\1y*\ �'_ Y.' I ,
ybL�v9 r'�/'ff a k,io C�h •!'• t � ��1�r� I. Yxs.. ,\ 'L
j�' a 1.:. 1.• <'' p { T Y`+...♦1 �L'� 54\ a, 'f.. ? e k+.`:x"' ,a,VI' "b f s� \..J f� ) \r'`,+�
�'� \C?^,;�" l� �� � !.}s ,\ .� � I \#�,'�}EY � �. -tr i ">�` +'�' �y t u• ' � v A'�,fG ° d \ ,�= �� .� v.
\lI,

`m.v-.-•�..- _� ra. ���� ' t5-T- i`'d S�! q"£'-.1L-� � '"i�Fc',�t7.r :c.„! vz j. - r: ..��.� ._ .._...... _
��-ter a'" � ,+,.. r i ,� M1 ✓J-p4. ,Ji _ .-T•so- y.. ' .E:3..,•,�,.•. i'.'o°` ..,p'" ..:• � �
..a' -p"' ...+->v-.r ? �.�•a"- , _ �r ",aa S3" R. i'/fr ,. Fc-%Xll•.�E-�"r rK ` ,�..,,,,.�. .. •..
r�,.'.t.'-`,.- �,7• :�.L'.Y.r?...I FT'ii- -� P? �•' �- ���`".�w,,,,�.�w r,� .,�..Ev'aCr1-.�' 'rw�.J i ,w.,c,,,w,ww,,.,,:,,ww„w,«,,,,w,,,,,,,,,,,,,�,,.
't y-•ar'A �y,,,�•�,d�'y��'tl k ,;.' .J;:s'.. �, ,. ��yC'Ys y E."' ,, •,.... n...I ..,..ww..,ww,.w,w...,
s.+r- y ,.iW�ti•_iKw•vHa.+,�mx+:v!^'AW. -\p� V _
f,:.-„aY.-..--r- -§::............._.-x _ .."°"`'� * r r_' ��� V / r +t�j,�^y-/•!� ,` I/Jt7,f / l��' V t � ,,+ j! .-.
fya' rr �; r• �C , r_� s _��f�i. Jr r � � f-s i.r�! tii� r .L ;rf•, r-r�'n•-" ''=,,.
�/ t� '�t' � 1�T r � !� ✓' �� tf �/ � j�'! rt . � �-ip "" , Y ;t ®R/-
? �<y />l�n. ' am;'�T< yJ IZ ` If '?{�( ® ��^•• //'1z1� w /�
r� �.lii�r ,!. �.�.1 ) /.•. �+ 1( :� f�+ �,:�+,# Y.: Jam! .t,Fi� •b`�i'"a �� 3• "// /Jb: + ..\�`>, r .:ytN r.. ( ^\F rt rr•r •.�. _5r,'�,C�j'�•n� .`.,
5, \` `l,'F �, ;r I,.c•, '1- ,fl., f.:, v!C ,�.,i. ,,a_ ',�i. '1.E... .°r. i . ✓.'_. \ "yYY.r7R�.'.?i/'. 'L'j •)• '1 ;..i !. ,�"�:y'f
a2.,;;. � 'R eL"1 � ` •{{- t:"� ''Y;` •i7}�� :� ^�. `�!�. r� r� / <-V 5yy,�� ,t.iw''� l � .�{ {t �, i I /J / , r 'i ��f�, r•t,,. n\'
A�"T' ,.['if „/� 'A 1 t/. •of /i�,hr'� ,1) /'7. :�[:1 ••�.�\\Ir . -l �' � s 'J;,1•:„ 5 ,<"' '� '�tty�!.:�,:'- 1` _ \,`l•t�; 1,/ �'r� -G `�� i" ,L J/4 s' �l��`S•-.!A/�/ �I•-•�;,j!��- 't 'ef ,�� ,.Q \, r^'' a '14 �t7+� ,t y~.lam. t/'• � r, .1, `�n ','�l�I� F].. r`,,�\• '.� s•� `�
f / ?J `�..1'� ," - /�;.� -b��/1,r_V`a��(D.f.1 ,,,•;r�r.aa-.n �,p,. �.}t t: I �itJ, r t f.4>ti, f''}�.,c,rr,�E „'i:•L7�� � `V; ',ti•.t 1,-�'t/�i;�h•,� ,`\, � y;+�,
- 1 � - `� � �� f '.�0. tr �, t++��.. i �l'��_�� �`� 'tit. r/ �;v � ''' y ',�� '/ �, •I tY� t; r •, "� •`\,f; r�,�/ �'"��'r--- ', '� , ��� E� -�! :R� �::i?sS '\, t -a y•; .� r�t•-r. � �\(� .•S � yf.,, I "� y��I
Y;) �'\I, .! ,7 cr+ ,sA.,<ro iyki ,7. y" .j`''p ,ry '`.'jjss//?:, ,\,v / - tiJ...JJ�� �.m? / 7 ;% l `• 1\1 ''� ;�n ,�. \ 4T- t'l.f r } I, , ,5 '•/ ��+' t
/ .� t•`r j1, - Y i�.�" 'M.�.�9 •\fir 1 r P�` �.� r =�\ 1y, \ �`� ' s �•- �\t,a
.� �T:1 1 .��r �t , ��f '`�ili ,�� ,i7C• 1 1r 7 �,. � �' t • �- '! e�' / r i `\ � l}�
' T�\• :y '! 5 '\\ �"�'�7t'/'"H s� �, ti1.�+�% � rT t �T. . � __ I.,g �'.r`.`; �pI�'f. "! ���N �„p.r,`� 5 �T'�,-.1 -t � ,t
,� t %V¢/ {*, �•, c\' I \/~ !• `� l' °fir I/ .` M1l. ry y q r... / i '1 'Gt��E .
`�:�"y�..-+ t1��-� 'iT�.' �, ,.}�,. t} a 1=•+,y ��� � r '` �� F s,�: .'� $C"- �u",.t'` i- � i.. a _t ! -�'.
�%• ,.�� Ix� `,��`J ''" �� � � _,��� "�'_. + , �'�.;_!� Y'(�,.' 1\4 It� ,�i'�,' ..t �! ; F��P�if. �.�•f�r` s
Y�� + F--�_y �t n tp 1. k #� ,k•'S,
,? w, 75xJi 'i: , �•, n •P�.�% fr�It ~\\ .., r�•sv`�.% �, t ;4 ��C�YS�r4 _ �.'j,
�~t-, r"�.��t, \t% �v` r ^' 1.-�'.f, _T�. Ir 1 'V. + �'�. a�� `\ l ',f,. !•�•c. .i'"yr ' r �11�` �'� \s n,e .•. "+' �`�'�\ ` 5, ti �`4. "r 1.y` v� ..\ �y"'�-., ..i. 'mot' ,r fit., ,`,,:,.
""`�i#( \_ ..�' 'I` �, .( _ -tee, . %a •.' ^�"', ,," r\\ 1A-i t''+'
I'/Y• .=1, , �]'��' ��>. ,�.. -v',ff. ,' o `r,`, _1 (, �., t� ..X,,. -, r.'s �� ''v;:,,,r 't yf'�a ,s�S %Jtli ,cam,. �{ •�.
Ip.l�TY''`. �t. �7Y1�! •.r '.�� A.L i'',� -� i1.1w'�1y�:��\ '.9\. � �• -..tea, 'S. 1' �• i9..��' ��' J4�1` r /.`r ; .�
`� ��.. �X�L. 4 J•C(.`, ,.1� 1�'�,. �f��1. r�l;'•t��Ya. '� '"1G!� \� ,� 4 -•/Ssui•Lt,�'�'' �lt `��r�p� ;re, •c?`tiJ .fir ! .��; _ T- '%j•.�/ 1,
.r�� ". _.., , "�3�! ;a ,.. 'X l�.v, ^•• L'1• 15 �•il �.�f'v.."1. ��• - TY+R ��.�" i'_ in. •r !/�
Vic, .x [4�� ���, fit:. P "�. :n _ �:� 'f• ,
N -.{ r 3.`•��� � �-.. t`,, ':�� _ ?R,: ,{ c f`rs- lPp`i'+ c.' �,� L ";b '.� �', t.-�� .ter,• ='tl.' c.� .'P
-
S
' iLry ''� t ti�. __ ' - -IY;.'. 4 1. r•\- ' t� '( J .0 S•:
!t`
�.Y.{ ? \ `7f �.Y t,t" .�,t K •:"�,�. .,t �,,,�• ��; ,�(d�o t ~ C�- n�.'�'� 'F.,,,, .•� �'L�� � 1-e:e� !. ..
{�, r, �� .dry x•
\- V {`- � - •.�'. w- r, ..t 'F. •`r. 'fie`'-. t� � ,,.al i^: _ -
a,_ r .. r>`r' A �`*:,`\r (' i t y r• t�'•:ti" ,;r t Z'S �C� j. .5 a/'\�3j��yl ��}•F ,
,` , J r_ ��, 1 l +-� `\.a. r ., v;�--4�`t tf?... f�J`5"\ rA.v� ,�h°""�t, ''�;t,. 1 � •fry •� ,.:r• i ��•,1'•
.`--Fr .� C Y//�%�/r• �� rF '� rJ ' � ��Cs� c !v'�`'Fi �ht;: ,, ::v ! 4` �3
t}, ,",°tom, '� ;...\ / �' 1`Jy« I•:fj.sa '�- }�rN S `"j%.�'q`r„, S•3Tx` "-. �T'r b•,' •�c % 'p, ;�t'"Ytr ': y Y' -'f •:1`�" -f\,`°'�' 'f+" //mac
J```�: p r Y :F'i,G` ' , . .�� t� .ry ,? !r�S`"-'3/ y,.« �r '.f- A� '..1�� ct�. ,%sr •t r'ti" r t - r �-' `�`� y,,�
't K... , 1��`•\�'r: •3•, •I .C� R �` ,,q .Y�k-o^1'�a ylr ir�rir �� C6 v i�\�i7r �rjcr�''�• .ti4
,�. r,, * �`. ,� ,r +-�__F�yi, ":J': A- 1:. • �-" �S 'jlp} ; "h�`�,�`�p . ,, .` �'1�:,c .ten• _f a'��"��...4�-..�.�..�•,!r�•.
l}+it-.. •_f �' - �+, °1 F: :;`:r/; \,,.�'y.• %i���.. ,�,?''l .,`��i.,Rf; _A ` - ° ,�' t ',{ J '•:Z. < .; -� ,1�`icA,�•
k � i' :� " rye, µ. Af Il '1" i� ,�f fir" J :t .,r � ? ^,1' r T't` !n \
�# - •y �.�,✓ � t ?ty �'��� .i^ �'rt;.���,�:b'�} `.�'.1�, r'.:j�)', th,� ,2�;. i-.' f i, a y.h,/ �*, ,f .,: �.��
• '� ,� Y,t . .� jl,t r,S.y-'. ,^.s- 1� 'u '�• i'i.di,�lP-s !.•
y ,� �' '..,�q• �` �., r/r y ..�. �i `_� r(r!�� 5.•5'y ,-'t'�''a'-R.,.ec./ il..-, „"1�. f: �t �: +Yi„ ( ! ��•�'• .`yye � � ,'r�'`. ,,i,\
.'1,`-.x(' t' .c,.t F``� .Y.' '�. ..• - �..t ')�/-.�1 .1. '.� �x .\- �: ..r h:N, 3l 1 ems. 't •% '7:,, S''�. ,� �t��'�d-t''7 .�3••„C , '��
g { `j� •, �,'r"� '�:.�;t' � �, ar // ��Yr : !� a?('S`'� Z r A,: .uf,�+' 'Vrstj� ,a' _iye`Y,\`'ra/. ,,/,jt _ YyZ� 5� 1 •\
.�'_7'����•�,y � ' "^ � :rr.a� /' C.•� � =i'tr�•T`� i� +Z '' ;r�.F, s , �. r� yt" ,,.,k'lr =F�..c' .',✓ Ai.n'y
14, " a��,. �t-/,r� 1 4* '� a�`�I,�- 4i � .� ;i r:)/- � d �+��°�, .'�! '��^��. ��-'\N i�t !^ °YC' -r ^;���1.'�•T�'\••
�,JAr f../+i` "'�t,,,h,��:� Tf"F•�.a�s�-'S �5f1� . � t,.- 5 � ��P; `+`.,. /y �:0.: r,( +�1t�. r�('t)��{� , vl. � ,.�'"� .;�' .' � •-,�ItT> 1
Vy.,. Fl. Ty['1'S,.•�'�; 1 -� •,�'���-��., 'V,. ,i.i` (�,il.\ i ��a��M��;��. T �', �•i v" r":C,,:,/L�J rx� �° .f` �y �- 1"ice; t, ,+ '•••t,. /• f ✓-`{;t r:1rt
.�id� �=�t� T 77 +.'::� t �,, 1 •[RaXr l /� 4 ��+ �,i6.�,, C ,{�.,. `1, .�.,. �t�i,.t I..� rr1:, � �I• +� �'. t/..�:,
'e�". '^6"3'�. ��.•v�.,�Cf1�,' ,-� .if'-,� .r ';t+1 .;1\�'' 9 � `;�l ,,i?i' \ of _�' �4tp4 T`_ V'i' r•� - v-/I 'r'i. _
T "�' � ,F.. t'•„:'%.f"f.•\ '�F,j��� r'T��r '�\�yt\�{�t: l' t•"r�. ^'t i`��y'iy`TA•�, �i.'�: .�.�',�F't.:,/ lJ'-.`�"^�., �u�� � -�. ,FF;, 4 5, ,� �1 v{ �;,G;•,
— �'�' `-�✓. {� —:ti-1 •�'® c(y..� 1 �! a'• ,,tf't'JI r r•r. ,� f YC-, a. /1i•:%yt�` i" `L" .°g'. (o!' � .,`.., 1
`'�'�\ .s. 'zf 'K�, -.t��..- •*� �i`t�. \••:•V. �-i A' T., r � �« `p•'ti'11� t*'•�q't. � 1 ./� '.,' 1 '"+ � �i� \' � 't� •.� 1� `.y,(��'%✓V'-.
_�•��� .v `. /?;�ftT,r ..�" \\'t,\�.. v .:� �^ ..( '� sZ':-+�'... �.•. L R� f �„6 "•+. - "` a'��� � ��'' � } ley` i1�'t ,I
_- a.Y i,-oi t^c•�`•' Ci;-�!". '\ .' `, /�4,r s ,r ��,.- •j ,E'� t `,�\'^4s, / Y .l r1:4'�'.^'~ ci v. - 1 �. \
�..d :� �/>i ^e � � � '"a. 's� ®.` ,'�`' 't r/��'?' k �•� ,'�„�`f, ' " ( �7�S 1 �,�-:..,:-G• V.e ,,,6 'it'! .�'� � � .. ���,�.i
,t+, •,.F °' .l'"'-�� •..� 1 ,�i; \t`` ,e. )` r. 4 t - 1 \ ;1•:1� ,r•� •r�,v . 'Pr .r•;� :'� ,.. `......:kA
�'�' � ''r Y '��, ? � .4•� .�� �-r.���^ ,,y.�, �, , ,�h'�'. �y ',`-�tr.'.�1�j is/�r•n d '� C t,r. ..Y•'�C/f� Yrr�`" ',,��.7 / �'' '`�t �{� f )11
J y Y ,` ;.d g�`_`r, (�.f�• /� b 1� "�' �•, 7 a tr's Sy.f ..• t ` ty \t, +!�� `r `-
V-
'..�}��,r'r � S!.'..j.'S.Y3 �,. ti �y.?;,1• `� '�':�. r, f a,�._h:' ,.Js�� � ,A@'1 � `� �.�`_-l•. '%'� ',1R '�^, S". �`z"•''a.:; Y�: =1r`tr..
' :k s., t. •, .;pk�"'I• >S.ti.,',,' ,1 1 %'�, � �,. tti,- i f: � 1�4>a:e _J' f 1•iI/, 7 I <,•�� t!'. �%�d,t�r v
sF`-, F r: _ 6f, `=c,;�7t.. - 'S1"a•' '?o ^',• � 't �' .I f"",' ti.,''•..l (' .1 `' �c
1�� 'F. � G �. ,cti l�.rr S: o •r�' r �t 'tr 1/ .t �''� ; �_ °S ''y, �� i `\cr=4 err. t C /.'�`. !
I' h+; rF / /.,2s�i/_ p,. ti ,V j 1 /r a„�• -3 r Y`!'' �� hr � Via !•.., '\1;� t. r „
,'....�',�• iU�'�.Y1. r \1 ir.!�.. � '� C, ��i. r:'..-� ., �3'• hnt�"s,r��`,4^.;S/,.''t ��'�,. .'?�...a•,.e,.. 'z•��-+�ru,.�1'�:.�'�.t tt-�-!•1lr: tf:'�` �5 'r�` �,..J f.

° - } '��_ 0+��le'.c' a(r j tt s� �r��C{_
3.x9i�. ,�4� + T� �b• � ii, t i `-, fit `� `3C-�' j' ••rTlc -= r' s� ,`I#" f`
` �t���i'�t�. '`;''4�� r s.k'S#s eT'' ,t.;� ,+l�k�` t �t �k � .tX�. ♦• Y� r a� 7' r „S;� `� _ �,d� ♦.
+.��1 � v 4 �•?. ! fit; �' �� 4 r • Ps m �`• h�'�.m��,.• t�;%:� �-�,o
°a'`tty�f� y�� t �.. 1 ti"r.+-'�'n`�� )�•(� l ` 1 �r ,Tj�� �M,i'•.y, ��•,,� .,,��r,��{+{r„'.z- ��-., y�
i��S � ,�..r" }< k` � �, �� ..:+F... �. f iy� ��a''��•• S�r �+ ...� a ^„{+.typo-�r.�,.•y t i !�f� ,Jro' ,� .
44 i "..Y ♦„[ {. '<. r.. .,,�. 1 -SfIL++ 4r. _ M• L: ��1ta�-'+bY �t4'I Y�17•jrr "t .
ySr h,.. � L+SA t "sY) .,it, s1iK'Y .i. t. /7 }'•t r+•��.�e1 ,. r bs,a hYFs•7 t '•4'.eX X� ,..
+T,t < •b r,vv f.h� `..i 3 .:*,1' r v' ''9i `> Ti �'ry' 'g!rar� �rtf r�a rr �r �/� r'�. � i�Y• '�Fs+..��..
�,.Z x .t^.;rt�t, Y y t � _ _ 1 � � �`�L1I.. A.F(•?1""��/,'' r/�F4 (!�•r - ✓ - " �,i.Y
���^''f.'�� � �`` "'1 a a �� •��:. b��r�� a'ti`',� x%'•'�� •�,__ev�e y t r•��. <��+i.:c`S <.rr/ y ' ''-
�
k 1 ,l 4 ����+',_� �. ''=y., .•�iFl,+' -yS.`f •":S r� y�t/'CS � 'fi I�y"F.-�.."1 �s_'�:�•�'-x+„?r^Cv- i ��.I,N7 �`'r 4�`'•7'�.0.
A' l,. �:. .�4 3• �,+;' T;`:, rC'1, 'sl 4 R' # tFYrF U l�f',r ; ,,!$ S t ' '
e.;��v. ,�ti, x`�t y a,r ,,���:it�}� c�; °' !� '���n '` �^tT�.+,��er+�,y; �r 1 '�y���•`�'S' �r y'_ ,v�9. i
�j r, Q `1.1. )t G.;� <�i. ,, -x.�r 1''"`,r Fl:•c .�.-J ������'kk••7 ti � i.c,+„�y y_a, I �."'.rlsr'" r?�t+ft!��};�5
"'�� xw,b'��Y�i'Q� �1.,,�i���Ch- �, r �' � r •4 ,� J �' '^f�iy- -� •�� r„y�l' y�'�•d a ,�v..�'1 4'TtA+'/:`r� r P,rr .:✓�!
}Y•y� a�, } � � � RC r
�; �'1"�� �+ � ���''Y 1�4•�.�•. '•ro.-r �..; yGi"G�jft..�` Y. ��✓�`;.tQ�;fi.w�`;j' �'iTK������_ Y• J.+,s.'f .i�5���•ry'�. ��'�! 4�h�)iiBY•�;i
;, s.�4tF�t,,. ,. ,L;S �+-.: ... �, "r, p�h .,�.,t ,� ,+„t''�,t 1�`}�,�,,✓,o,Q�a�(-„1� 5- YF`��r. r. �,!+� a .�:. .+'r' ,I1Y ftr+.
-'a tt \ *..M' �.�,�,1:,�.•+" '' �� •'Q,�\ 4..'44GY L S"y`:+ list.i' ;+_ 1_ f`'�,Ir�:. �^ �.��5. '-� -<�.:rr � r/'�''y4 e�..�!
lit
•vROIJ H..
TT.. +,:.yF h �� � _ ��r•�� ♦ 'Y � �7�{��i''. N•'t �}� `^'' _.!•"M ,�-' ��t `s�9`�"�+'F
�1 •..,J•4 � `•.".'�'3"itil � , � '' � 'r av !�' ,N l/�"�7C'� i W 4 Ya� �j...,.;_4 �t" 'M1 � � '•T�
,r" -t 11.��,ro�!� .��.L`, : �� +a+,�' � di1.l•��?,r4 t,,,f�R.� }af }�q it;'�� z'��•i� 3r��:•]1(, rc5}f �'�j�, M1
r S , r �'f
�ti � +`.,�s.,,�,i,x�. i '. r ,r r ,,� �4,�� � �rr`.'�i+,_y_Tr4-t . r• ¢,,,,�yr �a�y ����'r ,�1 y�i�'�'�
,.rC`�F,• _ •.0`_`C 'a'�"6:�c)i 1 ro S3��i k "r1+e"`4` `y t, .'7�aj r + qi" ,.F'�� j
����. ` <•,.;-...�,af '1.,. tee., �."",r f �'1_.5+$�`-k��,r3��,y�`��!.�6•,1 Q t .��.tY-•,fya,�Il•. �,q,9.•'� `.•��TS?:.
t?� ,�•' � .`� rr „� � �r..r��.��,t'° �`�F"'J`T '�,-�`5 �4=T�`<' LL t ,r{.. � x;., �.��.}�,,� r��s� ..r��r h���-•
•�,�.,� .` y '¢ Wit/'- '• / i F,r rm g ,1Y `�'r ' e +u
•'.�'1 �A ,mod• �` it�. .il 'sp, / �
?y;'^•.�.a+,'"�-,���. �j�:". r '� ' L. �C� �i.'l § {��., �'�,, �'d't,�l� '. i����r' ;a1,grCl����, /,r�r f-��_t /y'�!'� •..t
_ '`..4\..'+'.'\G yc;Y t.�`i 1�`.. ,�,• r�c��,' �! �'t 7+I�`rt t�". 'i x t�?% t R�'�'asc "fir W'. .a y�,ajr t'�. yi'�.i� r ° ry.4
.,�;y�••n:, ,zt>- �.. 1*� ,- ��'St r v h w a` � a e r i}f � '� .�-. S 1 a - e�..�f � 1 �t
A '"' A h � a,"5. 5` 9��i ��i.,✓ yts,^ St! �.K'j��'' s �"� t`"
y`�l ?Y�� •� �y.� a o Q��rc ?�� a•._.�"r,•'�j`� Y�f.r•`r�� �''' tu-•'�.I Y�.a•�''��
�,..�.�
Y � y: 1t
ill`. �s_ .� � '\1,`�,`�` •.Cip .,.*t y .� t ,r.. - - \ ,i -. l i`,
`x ro•,:{ � -Z�"` �'"'}.�:3'4tC` 1 r ';n `r. -•i•.r�: _ "¢ - i ZO'1: �}!'.T.(d`Y
t- V S jx, .Tr nt+" -'�r.'s��,� � ,r a::, � t z_ � -� a r� ,! �• � �r��!`` JY '�^•r`{.„k: �`�
s� \ r k� r y•. E
�_ .y t� •:S. �� � •r ,'�.p�.� �+ tom,',c�r > �� ✓ � -T { `�t , P r
.�ti", �'i,u 1�=+�"g` ,i•?�' . ;t'! .�r'�,".�t��t" r!f rri^S 1`�(, ^� Z r�-•��Q��i��r.(=4, '^�.� r�•yi 5 �i�Q fa,v�'+- l 4 r.+,t
.ry �'. ,t�,x . ' -`OL.� s cR'_ ,nf _ ti, `�•, y "" '''.c t59-s r++F �- ��c,� - �'4.+ .
` a P '-tom- `F. 1LC T' i+ ,/. 4+ y` <•,.�Yi� r • :e't'S �r lam`_�. 4 '"'-f��ri` X..":$ -+h •-�s� a#.� a' :T's/', f:•' � �rt�s� - �.:. �L' .�c•SsE-' � c�%�q�e �r �y ri•"' ..
�--i#I..tta ElU<( ! '�k"�.•�i.
. �.. � _.,, y _ i „i-"r•� Y4 t
,�
7^- �:�.... � Ste. t;'%c ,a++=- _ •.3` - "� ti,N2�,�"S`y '--, 1� �.r+•�' •-�1�4.`
�T4-fir.~ "`^ t ]/,F./r �••• �� % -!. '•l�� 4•�.�a�.... �`.= 'c�•�
N
^fir.':.'>S sS• � G�-�
@f � �KN'?'tl•' � �r:rr .��{•�`4. '��r�f.. � - �2@_�'}r'i n � " � y:�-�.��,» "� �,F,�.
a "��'�,� .`•-�l+ / {r`T •�` •... �j'c/tlQ�`�L� /- '� :.' � �• ��yjyp��Z�TL�,�`''ham "+�-."'�`^-�f:h Y7,
t.r.." or ,��,,, S � ���`_ .1��, •••� � /� -�J',• .'rot � fr !r'�c3F'�,2._y,� F .<
O
NO
•`C•?" ���� ,'� - 't>f�• � � t`..� ° + �
4 •r({/ s`, 1,r
��I,
C � -
�-, C'�,� ','•3 t �•�, .may t�,{{'� ,:- 4. �������`l .���i` ,�"r��-tk ��r'^-,,•cr`?� r'�: �l;h (!;'ik ,,f1151�., � ``.,�. �y
'' r�� rditi�' •fti�:`if F:� � :��4t�.•u.i- ,{y, t`,, �'+e/1 1�r� r{I�\ :.' +{:(�'r"�. � � t{[" / ,-,y.' �;� "`'�;
3t �1
.-�1\i {�1r�C' 1' a - a � \ ;�,i.t. ., �, ��tr� i '''�� f '}'• � ~j J� }, , -' IL.'
:`1 bC�t�`��. t`r'a p. � -'�J�;t ��'��#� �� `r'{� � •���' � �- „y��� `Irr �. '�� �r'.'',r ' .�,..i� trl' ��•F Jt-,�?. s_. ��<.
•� _icy ,J..--�v`S.- �r , � :; ,� t 3 r" �
4,�,} r'�
���`.r a ,�,'r- �'C, Sy �,!'t.r '!"'� �„� .� r:.• r'r•{ t _ r Sad -t +7•f � ,r• � _ r�y- �Ic��rcSA - �
��e 't�:?a rl�2Sa% -i`` 't �g, ��:; +r 1�j/ Z� �j�5+"k+� �1, }t�'�R��,-^•+� �%s ,� -v��/ro r`.� .�rrr �, C_ � �`=Vro����r r4 ��
o: lirr r4�4:,. - �: _ _•�. TTI<,t a 1.;,",•r,f� �%,;^•\� may, - l'..SC�` '.a /.�i. - •. ;.'}-j. a. �•{+
t
L ►�r 71
���,,, i .y c �," . ff�_i a �..,x :4•}y _. .�Y�j��{� `-�K� '�d���Ct ��• 'lt \\ �; �-�rj��ro�i�`� �:s
j�` y
�
�eT'ti�`�+•4.r +.,si�' .. � ,.. �✓�. �_ !rJ,•--•, � ,�j'"� �' "I�� !�. R, "'ti �q`w'�. 3 =� r' r✓7t�'('!�'?o �t-;S, �/�,y�1��,f��Fi,. � t""
'x
kilt-?a�'' } •'r•1, _.� Y�, % t. i ! L,'i: y, ;: -�-;••a,n. yt,� (t ,t 7��],:.��,�,. �,�a.(�{ffF'jjl� .t
�,�5_ •/ c..i � ,✓ �-_ r,/ f ' fu•:.,/ �' t..��'�r 9L�;}�r rr>>✓ � /s'�'�� ,r .t� +�C!� ,/� ar�f�4 1 L"3�+=�,
�`'� .7! Y C ,��( F 1 4, !t. a'`'� _ � ,J. _ - y-,,,i•�Y��1 Mc .�.
,,�,r,,' e �d•._ e��V� \4 T � .,,�f7 �� ��p -', _J 't <V,�'V _�i! �� �•��, \ SJ. 3�u��y,iT QS��,, ~�ty14 �V
;aAi,3����� �� .�1 `?tag•.'- /1� ��,t'����• t�'r/i� r1.�� .T- r `�U{A7jy,�.; y, t6!� �� u;bt�x �� \ t`'��.�_ 'J' ;s. 'r �{;°;'ti•t j. /7,.(��t(
,. r�!: !' Y I.y !l� "r lar !'"'�l' f M r 7 `,}�?:l:-„" .'��it..��r t,l` � f-,_•�'w^' ..•I �� <',.,`t!��y �. ^�u'C.
''{. ` r'y -iR a� ,t ;/; rr '�'S��,x•2' Ys C`��.. V't' t 1 `��t11�e4,,� 'Y7�i•(�T����r��.''�•y 1 `t,'_y`q��^��' "'Fi• r `A
r t�, �'. t i -'+`, Y �� r!r" '�� - ���aJ'j v�'��.,� it r '�1�*I.4. (i -:-,.y•4 r •r Sc�' ^` � ti:=./7j'L,t�'4k,�r�t '�'� -t
�� `r, \ Yi w- t •_ t
• rf ef�j� err' °y ' '1c ' ♦ r xr �,rr ` , 1,��r� r, r . �'�`�,� i::. . ,.
1.ti++
h "Inr '] -{ �'1 L �.. "'iX. .�. 'i, +�'1' 't� - �.P7 n'\h ! 1t ]ltq r�. }S�3 '\ Dtr�+ �'r ::Y�,v�.'+• ' !�=�.
�, t•J: '1r•�. ';i"� �pt ey..�rl'--�l" �.�" 's.*��d1 �`,; �•'...�� � li`.4. 4 �.v ��rXy}y :\�� ;f4 a..i �+., ,, �� € t
r �i )'. ��t���/Scte•��/�� �` .+i /�.:;!;� ���`4,�.y `��� '4r'." ���� �� � Y'f T �,ca�� ,�:�-. ;•r.•5���•G, •�"�;�,.��+
�' � � sit.+"5"r � e�.'r .t i•r�S � ,l .� i:,. ,`� �� ;�r'.' Tl �l`` :.C {r. +.mac'-l."«,
r . n• '{�j y�
� � � ��•a. -fT`.a i" �. �^ •.•� i ;�. +� � rw lrit f
{•1 �t 1J• ✓�, �y' � � / !�f /r v t' +i•�'���,�-r r T ..�' +1t�f�.•r�{�A,'= ��,'� t< 'r r �� ?•� _ i 1\,l�+t.��".>''
� /�%I/�.r�^BSI �j� ft�_�� y!?fj�� YiV � •l,•• �Z, 'Ci.,� j S �y,'�C�tY�'• �
i 2� tJ ]! .r�� \,y' t Jr'��\A i ti i\,, �''tl'a�L r -'c• -<I { / ��•i. { ., o;.
7' r -"'t `�r yry t'p J' t Ft ,x••.7 „': •ic( rt''(r r• -`I /' +.� Y r. "r `1 S +a ! •` 1\ •
xZ t -+ a•, f i r \\ i�k
t '� �r S _ ":+,g r�' '•�'„Q`,d � Y r ,Y' Fa.'' 'Y�.,�� •� b-e' •,� �:i� Qr�
ro•r
`, �j�l,"f'} � � Lam• `h�y4+i{y F� `�•- �■4D^I. ..!/r-!r t I"/ �: �:J�t��r _.'fi/'i7PC��.'S'I ,�iA'" rs ���.w•3�e'9cr1' ` +� r 1, •.�� � _

Laverty, Brett
From: Toepfer, John R <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 11:39 AM
To: Laverty, Brett
Cc: Pickett, Matt; Nordgren, Scott R.; Weisker, Brian R; McNash, James-geosyntec; Damasceno,
Victor-Geosyntec; Sullivan, Ed M; Czop, Ryan
Subject: [External] RE: Asheville Airport Area 1 -Technical Meeting Follow Up
Attachments: Memo- response to Brett Laverty.pdf; Airport Area 1 Piezometers and Survey Data.xlsx
,ICAUTION: D• not click links or open attachments unless verified. • all suspiciousto
Brett—attached is a memo from Geosyntec to address your questions below. I also attach the corrected version of the
spreadsheet with the surveying results, piezometer data, etc. Please let me know of questions. 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
From: Laverty, Brett [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 11:46 AM
To: Damasceno, Victor-Geosyntec; McNash, James -geosyntec
Cc: Toepfer,John R; Wooten, Rick; Davidson, Landon
Subject: Asheville Airport Area 1 -Technical Meeting Follow Up
*** Exercise caution. This is an EXTERNAL email. DO NOT open
attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected
email. * *
Victor,
I appreciate your comments at yesterday's technical meeting for the Asheville Airport CCP fill at Area 1. 1 would like to
follow up with you on two items discussed at the meeting.
I recommended that some type of remote sensing,such as electrical resistivity, be used to probe the structural fill in lieu
of drilling additional piezometers.You countered by saying the elevated specific conductivity of the coal ash leachate (-
950 uS/cm)would essentially trap the electrical current resulting in an unreliable resistivity model. Prior to my current
position, I worked in the Ohio coal fields reclaiming abandoned surface and underground coal mines. One of the projects
I worked on was a 135-acre valley-fill containing mining waste (e.g., sulfide minerals&coal fines).We used electrical
resistivity surveys to probe the valley fill.The resistivity models successfully delineated the fill material, underlying
bedrock,and previously unknown underground mines(see attached).The specific conductivity of the groundwater in
1

the vicinity of the attached survey array was approximately 4,000 uS/cm. My experience is that electrical resistivity can
be effectively used in areas with elevated specific conductivity.
We had lengthy discussion on the 34 degree friction angle that was used to model the stability of the CCP.You indicated
the estimated friction angle of the CCP was somewhat validated by the fact the stability model reproduced the shallow
veneer failure between the soil cap/coal ash interface along cross section B. Is the modeled veneer failure along cross-
section B due to the CCP friction angle or is it due to the friction angle of the soil cap (e.g., 30 degrees)? Is 34 degrees
valid as a lower bounding value for the friction angle of CCP along the toe where there is saturated conditions and
minimal compaction and overburden pressures?
I would appreciate a response as soon as your able.
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(cDncde n r.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.
2

1
Geosyntec Consultants of NC,PC
eosytitec. P 1300 South Mint Street,Suite 0
Charlotte,NC 28203
PH 704.227.0840
consultants www.geosyatec.com
Memorandum
Date: 17 May 2018
To: Brett Laverty,NCDEQ
Copies to: John Toepfer, Brian Weisker, Scott Nordgren; Duke Energy
From: Victor M. Damasceno, Geosyntec Consultants
Subject: Asheville Airport Area 1 —Technical Meeting Follow Up
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), Duke Energy, and
Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, PC conducted a technical meeting on Monday 14 May
2018 at the Asheville Regional Office to discuss the Asheville Airport Area 1 "Review of 90-day
Report Submittal and Required Interim Measures."
This memorandum was prepared per Duke Energy's request in response to follow up items
submitted by Mr. Brett Laverty (NCDEQ) to Dr. Victor M. Damasceno, P.E. in an email dated
15 May 2018. The follow up items are presented below in italic followed by the respective
responses.
I recommended that some type of remote sensing, such as electrical resistivity, be used to probe
the structural fill in lieu of drilling additional piezometers. You countered by saying the elevated
specific conductivity of the coal ash leachate (950,uS/cm) would essentially trap the electrical
current resulting in an unreliable resistivity model. Prior to my current position, I worked in the
Ohio coalfields reclaiming abandoned surface and underground coal mines. One of the projects
I worked on was a 135-acre valley-fill containing mining waste (e.g., sulfide minerals & coal
fines). We used electrical resistivity surveys to probe the valley fill. The resistivity models
successfully delineated the fill material, underlying bedrock, and previously unknown
underground mines (see attached). The specific conductivity of the groundwater in the vicinity of
the attached survey array was approximately 4,000 pS/cm. My experience is that electrical
resistivity can be effectively used in areas with elevated specific conductivity.
During our discussion on Monday, the use Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) was
presented in the content to determine the water elevation within the structural fill. ERT is a
geophysical method that utilizes electrodes, typically on the ground surface, to (i) inject current
into the subsurface and (ii) measure electric field potential/voltage drops between the electrodes
within the electrode array. The electrical current and voltage are then used to calculate the
Memo-response to Brett Laverry.docx
�tt�ineer� � �c �rirlst ! inncic�a��r:�

Mr. Brett Laverty
18 May 2018
Page 2
resistivity distribution through an iterative inversion algorithm. The inversion process is very
sensitive to error in the data and uses a smoothing factor to achieve the final resistivity image.
The more error in the data, the higher the smoothing factor, and the lower the resolution. To
minimize error in the data, the subsurface needs to have sufficient contrast in electrical resistivity
(e.g., for a same configuration, ERI can be used to map clay/sand interface but may not be
successful in mapping sand/silt interface).
My concern, as stated in the meeting, is that there might not be sufficient resistivity contrast for
the inversion process to properly generate a resistivity map that can properly/definitively
delineate the water elevation within the structural fill (Damasceno, 2007; Damasceno et. al.
2009)12. I agree that ERI could potentially be used to delineate the bottom of the structural fill
and subsurface interface (e.g., as you stated, "delineated the fill material, underlying bedrock,
and previously unknown underground mines") but that is not the context in which this option
was discussed.
We had lengthy discussion on the 34 degree friction angle that was used to model the stability of
the CCP. You indicated the estimated friction angle of the CCP was somewhat validated by the
fact the stability model reproduced the shallow veneer failure between the soil cap/coal ash
interface along cross section B. Is the modeled veneer failure along cross-section B due to the
CCP friction angle or is it due to the friction angle of the soil cap (e.g., 30 degrees)? Is 34
degrees valid as a lower bounding value for the friction angle of CCP along the toe where there
is saturated conditions and minimal compaction and overburden pressures?
Based on field observations, the scarp near the toe along cross-section B is considered surficial
and likely runs within the final cover or along the cover/CCR interface. If the scarp had been
within the CCR, Geosyntec would likely have seen evidence of CCR near the toe of the failure
during our field inspection; however, this was not the case. The slope stability results submitted
in the 90-day report, replicate this condition, as stated during our meeting on Monday. The 34-
degree friction angle used in the stability analysis is an appropriate average friction angle for
CCR, as confirmed by field data and corroborated by laboratory tests for other facilities and
published research. Due to lack of construction documentation, Geosyntec cannot comment on
the compaction levels within or around the structural fill.
1 Damasceno,V.M. (2007). "Use of Electrical Resistivity Tomography to Evaluate Processes in Soils."University
of Wisconsin,Madison.
Z Damasceno, V. M., Fratta, D., Bosscher, P.J. (2009). "Development and Validation of a Low-cost Electrical
Resistivity Tomographer for Soil Process Monitoring."Canadian Geotechnical Journal,2009,46(7),pp.842-854.
Memo-response to Brett Laverty.doex
i�ttbirlee S I ScienTISIS 1 h1tiovaTors

Laverty, Brett
From: Michael A. Reisman <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 8:33 AM
To: Laverty, Brett
Cc: Lew Bleiweis; John Coon
Subject: [External]Airport Area 4
CAUTION: External email. D. not click links or open attachments unless verified.Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Brett:
As a follow up to our discussion yesterday concerning Area 4... I did verify a few things for your information. While
Duke Energy never specifically contacted us to inform us of any issues with the Area 4 slope,there was a reference to
some minor erosion starting on the slope in the their January quarterly report. This information was picked up during
review by our Director of Operations, and he and our Maintenance Supervisor inspected the site shortly after our receipt
of the report. The erosion was determined to be relatively minor in nature, and although it needed to be repaired,there
was of course no practical way to repair it and get vegetation to grow on it in the middle of winter. It therefore has
continued to be monitored by our staff through the remainder of winter,with the intent on repairing and seeding it in
spring. It was on our maintenance schedule to work on recently, but the rains over the past couple of weeks have
precluded that. Our Director of Operations and our engineer actually inspected it together just last week,and again
determined that the erosion was minimal, and discussed a plan for repair and re-seeding. We have noted however that
with the large amounts of rain we have had over the past week,that visible erosion has definitely worsened a bit, but
our engineer still categorized it as minor in nature. As soon as it dries up,it will be a priority for us to repair and re-seed.
Concerning the dormancy of the grass... much of the slope has greened up, however there is a well defined rectangular
area that has not. This appears to be a different species of grass,and although there is some green in it, it certainly
appears problematic. We are investigating if this is just a species that takes longer to come out of dormancy, but will of
course take the appropriate action to address it depending upon what we determine.
I understand we are awaiting a scheduled time for a site visit of this area next week on Tuesday as you mentioned. We
will look forward to speaking with you about it again then.
Michael A. Reisman, A.A.E.
Deputy Executive Director,
Development&Operations
Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority
E-mail: mreisman(&fiyavl.com
Office: 828-654-3253
Mobile: [phone]
~'
.gym
1

Laverty, Brett
From: Davidson, Landon
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 8:53 AM
To: Culpepper, Linda
Cc: Laverty, Brett; Wooten, Rick; Zimmerman, Jay; Risgaard, Jon; Benzoni, Francisco; Bircher,
Amy([e-mail]); Frost, Larry
Subject: Asheville Airport/Duke meeting
Attachments: 05162018092911-D00051618.pdf
Linda,
Just fyi. On Monday(14t''),we held a meeting here in ARO to discuss area 1 of the Asheville Airport CCR structural fill. A
list of attendees is attached that includes DEQ staff, Duke Energy staff and Duke's consultants. Asheville Airport staff
indicated that they planned to attend but misunderstood the meeting location and were not present for any portion of
the meeting nor attempted to call into the meeting.
The discussion centered around our 90-day report review comments.The concerns of DEQ, including the need for
interim measures,was communicated to Duke.The discussions were almost completely technical in nature with the
exception of a brief, and very general discussion about how the site could be permitted moving forward, dependent
upon remedial options. Duke pointed out that they have paid for all the work to-date. Duke's consultant, Geosyntec, did
not express concern with the most recent slope pin data that we had mentioned to you on May V. Duke also expressed
the desire to expedite moving the project towards corrective action (e.g., build-out/cap as planned)to reduce infiltration
and to avoid any unnecessary assessment costs.
For more details, please feel free to contact Brett or me at any point. In the coming week or two, I recommend a
conference call to discuss the various aspects of the site. I will attempt to setup a call with all of us.
Thanks.
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(aDncdenr.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.
1

Q-1-D
2 CaueI-If cy�iv/t. Gov
� our �(�`��bsa a Q'2�l Z`z� �fS�� L�Nob� . ®�4v.��sw-►C, xc.���a...
i
�z8'-Z-6- y63z
ZZA,,\l v�_K `off o 3?3 —S l!? a ke tr1 wa.S_K�7'L-�Y�'
11 �►� in v Gq oaf. Id�P,e��uIt-ersev �4,
5i
Jxm tagthe s—Li ®�--�2� � �. ��d�3�_-sf, _c_cc,
V�(4�16—MA5-a-7-� ]KY ?2�-- C'Ml' pO 6 _SV,
I _
1
1
t

Laverty, Brett
From: Michael A. Reisman <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 3:51 PM
To: Laverty, Brett; Toepfer, John R
Subject: [External]Todays Meeting
s ®m ..-
John and Brett—please accept my apologies for the screw up in todays schedule on the airport's behalf. As noted, I had
the meeting on my calendar, except that I was showing it being held here at the airport. In reviewing the�emails that set
this up, I clearly misunderstood "Asheville Regional Office"for"Asheville Regional Airport" in terms of the meetings
location. No one's fault but my own. I will look forward to speaking with Brett tomorrow for an update on the results of
the meeting, and I will certainly ensure I am more thorough in verifying the location of any future meeting.
Michael A. Reisman,A.A.E.
Deputy Executive Director,
Development&Operations
Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority
E-mail: mreisman(ZDflyavI.com
Office: 828-654-3253
Mobile: [phone]
rw Ww
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

La'!erty, Brett
From: Toepfer, John R<[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 2:52 PM
To: Laverty, Brett
Cc: Sullivan, Ed M; Czop, Ryan; Pruett, Jeremy J.; Hill, Tim S.; Weisker, Brian R; 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])
Subject: FW: [External]Asheville Airport Area I Survey Results-April 2018
Attachments: Duke Response to DEQ Email from April - May 2018.pdf
o
Brett—attached is a response to your email (below) of observations regarding Area I structural fill at the Asheville
Airport. This is only being submitted electronically, please file accordingly. Let me know of questions on the
attached. 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
From: Laverty, Brett [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday,April 26, 2018 4:49 PM
To: Toepfer, John R; Michael A. Reisman
Cc: Pickett, Matt; Nordgren, Scott R.; Hill, Tim S.; Sullivan, Ed M; Czop, Ryan; John Coon ([e-mail]); McNash,
James -geosyntec; Lew Bleiweis; Wooten, Rick; Davidson, Landon; Risgaard,Jon; Zimmerman, Jay; Benzoni, Francisco
Subject: RE: [External] Asheville Airport Area I Survey Results -April 2018
Exercise caution. This is an EXTERNAL email. DO NOT open
attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected
email. ***
John and Mike,
I've completed a review of the April 2018 piezometer and.slope pin monitoring data and would like to highlight a
number of pertinent observations:
• According to the Geosyntec Engineering report, reported pin displacements between 0.1-ft. and 0.2-ft may fall
within the survey error but displacements above 0.2-ft are a better indication of actual slope pin displacement.

• The April 5, 2018 geopin survey identified vertical displacements along the row 1 transect(see attached slope
pin east cell Map) which is located at the toe of the weeping slough.Vertical displacements ranged from 0.17
feet to 0.24 feet. DWR inspections in March 2018 identified potential movement in the scarp face at the top of
the slough (see attached photo).
• The April 5, 2018 geopin survey identified vertical displacements of 0.24 feet and 0.29 feet at geopins J2 and J3
respectively.
• The row 1 transect and the J transect are associated with portions of the fill slope that have a Factor of Safety
less than 1.
• Geosyntec recommends that the northeast slope of the east cell near transect J be inspected thoroughly for
signs of displacement. In addition,the west cell adjacent to transects M and N should also be inspected for
surface manifestation of displacement and to assess whether computed displacements are the result of routine
maintenance,freeze-thaw cycles,or systematic or intrinsic survey error.
• Changes in the piezometric surface elevations at PZ-2 is similar to the changes/trends in the phreatic surface
elevations at PZ-1, PZ-3, PZ-4, PZ-5, and PZ-6 (see attached phreatic and piezometric elevation chart).
• The piezometric surface elevations at PZ-2 are similar to the phreatic surface elevations at PZ-5 and greater than
phreatic surface elevations at PZ-1.
• The phreatic surface elevation at PZ-4 is significantly higher than the phreatic surface elevations at PZ-1, PZ-3,
PZ-5,and PZ-6.
DWR is requesting Duke Energy and the Asheville Airport provide a response to these observations as they relate to
slope stability and the development of a phreatic surface within the CCP fill.You will also need to provide a timeline to
inspect and report on the stability of the weeping slough area,J-transect, M-transect,and N-transect. Please provide
your response by the close of business on Friday May 4,2018.
Monthly slope pin monitoring, inclinometer monitoring, piezometer monitoring, and site inspections are to continue
until further notice. Please submit a monthly spreadsheet containing the geopin survey data, inclinometer data, and
piezometer monitoring data. From this point forward,the monthly monitoring spreadsheet will need to contain daily
rainfall totals from the Asheville Regional Airport beginning with October 1, 2017.
Please note that DWR will be providing a response to the 90-day report in the coming week.The expectations outlined
in that letter and this email are applicable to both Duke Energy and the Asheville Regional Airport. Please contact me if
you have any additional questions or concerns.
Regards,
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
2

Swannanaa, 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:Toepfer,John R [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday,April 25, 2018 3:50 PM
To: Laverty, Brett<brett.lave [e-mail]>
Cc: Pickett, Matt<[e-mail]>; Nordgren,Scott R. <[e-mail]>; Hill,Tim
S. <[e-mail]>;Sullivan, Ed M <[e-mail]>; Czop, Ryan <Ryan.Czop@duke-
energy.com>;John Coon ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; Michael A. Reisman ([e-mail])
<[e-mail]>; McNash,James-geosyntec<[e-mail]>
Subject: [External]Asheville Airport Area I Survey Results-April 2018
s External er i.Do no cis fin s or opre 'aMETER meny e s verified.Send a f susp c`'u a ail as n attachme t to
e
Brett,
Geosyntec Consultants received on April 13, 2018 the coordinate and elevation data collected on April 5, 2018 by McKim
&Creed for the Asheville Airport Area 1 slope monitoring system (Transects A through N) and provided a summary to
Duke Energy on April 16, 2018.The attached should also include the piezometer and inclinometer data.
For Transects A through J,Geosyntec compared the data against the baseline survey collected 4 October 2017 and
computed the relative movement. For Transects K through N, Geosyntec compared the data against the baseline survey
collected 15 November 2017.
As described previously and provided in the 90-day report,starting with 12 December 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.
Geosyntec's observations are as follows:
• 20 slope pins (A8, B6, B8, C8, E8, F8,J1,J2,J6, M2, M3, M5, and N1 through N8)were calculated to have
displaced above the survey tolerance (0.1 ft/1.2 in.), in either the lateral direction and/or in elevation relative to
the baseline surveys; none have a total displacement of more than 0.291 ft(3.50 in.) in the lateral direction or
more than 0.245 ft(2.94 in) in elevation.
• Eight slope pins (135, B7, C2, D7, H2,J3,J4, and 1-4) identified with displacements above the 0.1 ft tolerance on
March 12, 2018,were found with displacements below the 0.1 ft survey tolerance on April 5, 2018.
Eleven of the 20 slope pins calculated with movement above the 0.1 ft survey tolerance are located within the
west cell and have not previously been identified with movement since the baseline survey. M2,M3, and M5 are
slightly above the 0.1-ft survey tolerance in the lateral direction; while, N1 through N8 were measured with
3

' displacements above the survey tolerances but below 0.2 ft.The relative computed displacement of Ni through
N8 appears to be in the opposite direction of anticipated movement.
Based on this information,the slope does not appear to have significantly displaced since the baseline survey
events. Geosyntec recommends that the northeast slope of the east cell near transect J be inspected thoroughly for
signs of displacement. In addition,the west cell adjacent to transects M and N should also be inspected for surface
manifestation of displacement and to assess whether computed displacements are the result of routine maintenance,
freeze-thaw cycles, or systematic or intrinsic survey error.
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
4

��� " = 410 S Wilmington Street Raleigh NC P7601 `
NER Yu MatlingAddress
Mail Code;NC 15-
Raleigh,NC2760t
919 546-7863
May4,2018
Mr.grett Laverty:
NC bLQAsheville„Regional Office '
2090'U.S.70 Highway
SWannanoa,NC 28178
RE Response`to, the Department of,Environmental Quality Email..from April 26, 2018, Greater
Asheville Regional,Airporf,Area I Structural Fill'
Dear Mr.Lavery
Duke Energy is in receipt of an email from the Department of,Environrnental.Qual ty(DEQ)dated April
26,2018 which included some observations. DEQ requested a response to these observations from
Duke'Energy and the'GreaterAst eville'Regional Airport by close of business on:May 4;,2018.-The
enclosed from GeosynteeConsultants of,North`Carol"ina,°P.C..(Geosyntec)add'ressesthe observations
from the email. Separat6fr6m that,-Duke,Energy will continue with bi-weekly inspections of Area l
r structural fill and will continue with monthly surveying of slope,pins. The surveying r`esults:will continue
to be submitted to DEQ acid incorporate inclinometerdata and piezometer data. °Pee DEQ,request,this
submittal will also.indude daily rainfall`data. Duke Energy-has obtained rainfall:data back to October 1,
2017 and incorporate into our future submittals.,.
If`you have' any questions or need any clarification regarding'the information provided, feel free to
contact me [e-mail] or at 919-546-7863 at your convenience.
Respectfully submiled,
ohn`Toep er, P.E.
Lead Engineer, Duke Energy EHS CCP
Waste&Groundwater Programs
cc: Matt Pickett—Duke Energy ,
Scott;Noidgren—DukeT Energy
Ed Sullivan—Duke Energy
Michael A. Reisman—Asheville Regional Airport
Mr.lames,Mcrash,P.E. Geosyntec Consultants of North Carolina, P.C.
Eric: May 4, 2018 Response to NCDEQ Observations Email M Dated 26 April 2018 - Geosyntec
Consultants of North Carolina, P.C.

' 7
Geosyntec Consultants of NC,PC
1300 South Mint Street,Suite 300
GeOSV. 1 tt � Charlotte,NC 28203
PH 704.227.0840
consultants
Www.geosyntec.com
4 May 2018
Mr. John R. Toepfer,P.E.
Lead Engineer
Duke Energy Progress,LLC.
410 S. Wilmington St. /NC 15
Raleigh,North Carolina 27601
Subject: Response to NCDEQ Observations email dated 26 April 2018
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 observations provided by the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) for the Area 1 Structural Fill (Area 1) April
2018 Survey Monitoring Event at the Asheville Regional Airport (ARA). Area 1 is located in
Buncombe County,North Carolina(NC) and is owned and maintained by the Asheville Regional
Airport Authority (ARAA). On 26 April 2018, Brett Laverty, P.G. (NCDEQ) e-mailed and
requested a response to observations made on the 5 April 2018 survey event data. The purpose
of this letter is to respond and clarify the observations made by NCDEQ.
The paragraphs below provide each NCDEQ observation in italic font followed by the
corresponding response in normal font.
RESPONSE TO NCDEQ OBSERVATIONS
Observation 1: According to the Geosyntec Engineering report, reported pin displacements
between 0.1 ft. and 0.2 ft may fall within the survey error but displacements above 0.2 ft are a
better indication of actual slope pin displacement.
Response: NCDEQ's observation is correct. The Engineering Analysis Report acknowledged
that the survey tolerance is 0.1 ft (1.2 inches) for the northing and easting coordinate, and
elevation measurements. More so, apparent displacements below 0.1 ft are considered negligible
and a result of limitations of the survey equipment. Computed displacements between 0.1 ft and
0.2 ft may still fall within the survey error and displacements above 0.2-ft may indicate slope pin
movement; however, routine slope inspection is warranted to ascertain whether the computed
GC6463/ARA_Area_1_S1opeMonitoring_Comment Response
engineers I innovatom.

Mr. John R. Toepfer,P.E.
4 May 2018
Page 2
displacements are due to survey error, slope maintenance (e.g., pins run over by maintenance
equipment), freeze thaw cycles, or observable slope movement. Duke Energy routinely inspects
the Area 1 slopes for observable slope movement and did not observe any indication or evidence
of additional displacement during a recent inspection on 30 April 2018.
Observation 2: The April 5, 2018 geopin survey identified vertical displacements along the row
1 transect (see attached slope pin east cell Map) which is located at the toe of the weeping
slough. Vertical displacements ranged from 0.17 feet to 0.24 feet. DWR inspections in March
2018 identified potential movement in the scarp face at the top of the slough (see attached
photo).
Response:
,A transcription error exists for the slope pin data within the spreadsheet provided to NCDEQ on
25 April 2018 which incorrectly identified potential displacement in Row 1 (slope toe) instead of
Row 8 (slope crest). 'Specifically, Geosyntec provides a summary spreadsheet with slope pin
survey data collected by McKim and Creed and computed displacements to Duke Energy after
each survey event. Duke Energy transcribes this spreadsheet to a Duke Energy-specific internal
monitoring spreadsheet that includes piezometer'and inclinometer measurements and provides
the internal spreadsheet to NCDEQ. This response is intended to address the calculated pin
movement in Row 8 during the last monitoring event in lieu of the Row 1 pins.
Geosyntec reviewed survey data collected by McKim and Creed in April 2018 and computed
vertical displacements between -0.124 ft and -0.245 ft in crest slope pins A8, B8, C8, E8, and F8
since the baseline survey. Apparent slope movements were previously identified in some of
these pins during prior slope pin monitoring survey events. The slope pin data indicates pin
movement of-0.245 ft and should be inspected to assess the source of the apparent movement
(e.g., slope maintenance, freeze thaw cycles, slope movement).
NCDEQ identified a small scarp above the temporary stabilization measure and attached a
photograph from a March 2018 visit. The referenced scarp was observed during prior site visits
and is delineated on Figure 2 of the Engineering Analysis Report. Duke Energy routinely
inspects the Area 1 slopes for observable slope movement and did not observe any indication or
evidence of additional displacement in the vicinity of the Row 8 pins during a recent inspection
on 30 April 2018.
Observation 3: The April S, 2018 geopin survey identified vertical displacements of 0.24 feet
and 0.29 feet at geopins J2 and B respectively.
Response: Acknowledged. Slope pins J1. and J2 were computed with apparent lateral
displacement in each survey event subsequent to the baseline survey event on 4 October 2017.
GC6463/ARA_Area 1_S1opeMonitoring_Comment Response
�. xzg�rt �s � sclt�tlt�t'I xz�e� or

Mr. John R. Toepfer, P.E.
4 May 2018
Page 3
Geosyntec recommended continued observation of Transect J, installed through the steepest
portion of the north Area 1 slope. Duke Energy routinely inspects the Area 1 slopes for
observable slope movement and did not observe signs of slope displacement at Transect J during
a recent inspection on 30 April 2018.
Observation 4: The row 1 transect and the J transect are associated with portions of the fill
slope that have a Factor of Safety less than 1. ,
Response: Factor of Safety (FS) is defined as the ratio of resisting forces (resistance) vs. the
driving forces (load). As such, a FS less than 1.0 indicates a failure has occurred for the modeled
conditions.
As required by NCDEQ, Geosyntec prepared a slope stability study on behalf of Duke Energy
for the north Area 1 slope which is provided as Appendix E to the Engineering Analysis Report.
The slope stability study's objective was to identify the root cause of the soil cap breach and
compute the estimated FS. The slope stability study evaluated three cross sections, as shown on
Figure 9 of the Engineering Analysis Report, to compute the FS for veneer, global, and base
sliding mechanisms. Cross Section B is located through the observed breach area and a FS of
0.9 was computed for the veneer stability case that considered elevated water levels within Area
1 that yield a seepage face within the slope. This veneer stability case represents the surficial
sliding of the soil cap observed at this location on 7 September 2017. As such, the field
observation of a veneer failure — not global — confirmed the computed FS of 0.9 for the
representative Cross Section B. Geosyntec demonstrated that the global static FS exceeds the
target of 1.5 for the conditions modeled for the Engineering Analysis Report. Geosyntec also
demonstrated that the removal of the seepage face in Cross Section B improves the computed FS
above the target FS of 1.5 for the veneer stability case.
Cross Section C was evaluated for the Area 1 slope near Transect J, which contains a different
external geometry, subsurface geometry, and phreatic conditions compared to Cross Section B.
Water elevations from PZ-4 and PZ-6 were utilized to develop the phreatic surface for Cross
Section C and the slope stability model assumes a conservative (e.g., worst-case) seepage face
forms at the external boundary of the slope. Under these conditions, conservative FSs of 0.8 and
1.9 were computed for the veneer and global stability cases, respectively, under this worst-case
scenario to inform future slope inspections. However, a seepage face, condition required to
compute a FS of 0.8, was not observed at Cross Section C or near Transect J, which was
confirmed during the 30 April 2018 inspection.
Observation 5: Geosyntec recommends that the northeast slope of the east cell near transect J
be inspected thoroughly for signs of displacement. In addition, the west cell adjacent to transects
M and N should also be inspected for surface manifestation of displacement and to assess
GC6463/ARA Area_l_S1opeMonitoring_Comment_Response
seas 4 s hie s I %nnpvators-

Mr. John R. Toepfer, P.E.
4 May 2018
Page 4
whether computed displacements are the result of routine maintenance, ,f•eeze-thaw cycles, or
systematic or intrinsic survey error.
Response: Acknowledged. Until a path forward for Area 1 is identified between stakeholders,
routine slope inspection and monitoring is recommended.
Observation 6: Changes in the piezometric surface elevations at PZ-2 is similar to the
changes/trends in the phreatic surface elevations at PZ-1, PZ-3, P7 4, PZ-5, and PZ-6 (see
attached phreatic and piezometric elevation chart).
Response: Acknowledged.
Observation 7. The piezometric surface elevations at PZ-2 are similar to the phreatic surface
elevations at PZ-5 and greater than phreatic surface elevations at PZ-1.
Response: Acknowledged.
Observation 8: The phreatic surface elevation at PZ-4 is significantly higher than the phreatic
surface elevations at PZ-1, PZ-3, PZ-S, and PZ-6.
Response: Acknowledged. The phreatic surface elevation trend was presented in Figure 6 of the
Engineering Analysis Report.
CLOSURE
If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Mr.
James D.McNash 704.227.0855 or at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
mes D. McNash, P.E.
Project Engineer
or M. Dam ceno, Ph , P.E.
icipal Engineer
GC6463/ARA_Area_1_S1opeMonitoring_Comment_Response
g4ginee�s I s�1611 sts I irMpvator-4:

r
Laverty, Brett
From: Frost, Larry
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2018 3:42 PM
To: Davidson, Landon
Cc: Wooten, Rick; Laverty, Brett
Subject: Field Report 5/1/2018
I have placed my report in the following file, I am also sharing it Ed Mussler and the rest of our team. Please look it
over, a lot for a 45 minute visit.
G:\RO\Shared\LFrost\AVL Area 1
Larry Frost
Engineering Project Manager
Division of Waste Management, Solid Waste Section
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
[phone] office
[phone] mobile
Iarrv.frostCc)ncdenr.gov
Asheville Regional Office
2090 US Highway 70
Swannanoa, North Carolina 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.
P
1

Waste Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY -
Solid Waste Section,Permitting Site Report
'Facility.Type-_ - - County: -
CDLF COMPOST INDUS LCID counrynnme Buncombe
MSWLF TP TRANSFER Other om=ryp. Structural Fill
DATE:
May 1,2018
FACILITY NAME:
Asheville Regional Airport(AVL),Area 1 Structural Fill
FACILITY CONTACT NAME AND PHONE NUMBER:
Brett Laverty,Hydrogeologist
DWR,ARO
828.296.4681
Brett.lavertyna,ncdenr.gov
ATTENDEES:
• AVL Management
• Sheila Holman—DEQ
• Linda Culpeper—DWR
• Landon Davidson—DWR,ARO
• Brett Laverty—DWR,ARO
• Ted Campbell—DWR,ARO
• Zan Price—DWR,ARO
• Rick Wooten—GS,ARO
Dig itaIly signed by Larry Frost
• Larry Frost—DWM/S W S DN:cn=Larry Frost,o=Division of Waste
y Management,ou=Solid Waste Section,
ema11=[e-mail],c=US
Date:2018.05.03 0832:30-04'00'
NOTES:
Purpose:
The purpose of my visit to this site was an initial site visit to the Area 1 structural fill with DEQ and
AVL staff because of concerns of structural failure. I was briefed by DWR staff on their concerns for the.
structural fill and the extensive study/effort that DWR has invested to understand the issues with this fill.
I,therefore,took this opportunity to do a brief(45 minute)walk over of the cap system for the fill. What
follows here are my observations of the cap.

u
,� ,$ El
1 ,
_ ,�F:.n,� / .''! ���� `\i`rIL•!LZ !1 1. .. y{ -� J �-,�fi;.f�'�1•C
�.�� � �'�• tti�'.9 cs,�•� '.i, 1' - ram• -
0.q-mQ. ` i ' ,�� ram, �'• S
iLSL;
iL
. .:G�')) (r71� .ate\ t- �r" n,r,•
r�

't,Uo7 �^�"Gi•'+ Y FY�i� r` 1 "�TY����_.1Y}� -r{Y �� � '.'a Y r1� RL1, � {
— . ,—fi- .r�f• SG� may, � �t �4 ���,.
- fi t. "fit t•r - ( �. 'r. �L
At
i I .r`UIR
kill
y �.
CJ ( i_'T16.J t."''F"� q`1 �� ,_�f.. \ `y`_1i�i�j�. `� }t �t. .4•. '

{ 1
• _ � r'�� '�� q 'III ' i 3a-, �.. _ ;i{per -.. '.
IL
y
i A
rya. 'ti.. t' , ♦�'�r yy�♦y��.�!
� r'"�"��ryy' \�'r���`�'���'� ,r_r�� ��a♦r+`V��`.���j-'fit �c*!� '\ Tt'�' ��.' �� �`
17
e NN
A 1t } �r y,
G4 'Y
1 „i',
t { -

PERMIITING FIELD REPOR`
Division of Waste Management
Solid Waste Section
Page 5 of 5
Picture 7 shows the complete cap'in 2013.
the addition
of the wildlife fence
Picture 8 is the cap,2015.
U
r
• Records indicate—700,000 tons of CCR were placed in this fill with buildings and aircraft ramp
(concrete) as the ultimate uses for the fill area.
• No construction has taken place as of this date and none is being considered in the future.

/ �,.•_ !3r„ _'T.,fit � 1
asp. � �Ae: { N" �,� ?'. t ter" e� • _
(1�,_y�kt '' _�` �s! � 'tip :- �•' !,.` �+•1'�_ 5 '�.. C$'�"� '�4 :�y7�'�
yla i s i� b
E _ �',yr_f r _ � �y,Y. } .�;r. .t � J,fy_ a _•:r , _" �'�.,^• Y t.. 'Fy:-. r _
t `

PERMIITING FIELD REPOR
Division of Waste Management
Solid Waste Section
Page 7 of 7
Picture 10,A.
Ponded Water
Roadd'' Wildlife fence
SH
T
dl ��
Cap area A issues;
• The cap is graded for flow from south to north.
• The access road carves off the northwest corner of flow and directs flow to the ponded area.
• The wildlife fence system impedes flow out of cap area A,the posts penetrate the cap, and there
is a concrete berm below the fence to impede burrowing under the fence. (see picture 11).
• Water ponds in the area indicated in picture 12 continuously. Wet soil/cap is found along the
northern and southern fence line, subsidence along the fence line is possible.
• The drainage area is—4 acres.

. • p
tNll
+J ' "�Z� Kt + 't i f,( k
'yv t �h .,��' aii, .•r�f`1�`�`tt� s;�1 :•tlplr P'+�i�°T��J
d«.G'�k.'y.i� t:ur'1j
I e ,•jjig /{y, ty 11
+'3.S tniSE�''
y_• o'er a W' ♦r s ;; r i `Ss 1 rr DL
s t
1., r h�.' fir✓ }ilrl �.tr" k,F7 yf"+..,� } t; •q4 /.
' tXiJ
+;iR
r 15tc' ,� �•.� t�A
4 '•` 'Y` t V �i 'id^�Ki4� 1, •� � V ,p/f P�f..,.�
rAl
`2

� 3 �i5y, 4 'i' n rn' 4� ' r � JY�f3 .^•;.. -r"y ('� „y1
_,1 43.e rr �w, 1�. 'i i.♦ r-q + R f - .�. X n
d.
�,���[y�;�
i�'`'ry
"s,{� Ai `..• ,:prl+ ,....- w` --r�Y`;( f4�' ,fsa°3^6.�+ # iS'�. __ S y yt`S�-' f '�Y;y� .7"yw
ISO
;kk t,
_45
R., .-,ate 3e..�y t"•+ �A r�r � :� � s`^r i' �-_ � �^�"'dr a'S=,�' .t �tiyy fit- > `J
-+•a. �� R
+�+
''��r�-.. r: ( � ���a{� �k•y����y, �19�6�31'4aJ _ Y?,ry`e �'+. .�eot,`� fi k, r .,��r f+,.,, v�y,��7,...... F` r ✓•� t Iyt K.x.' 1 "9` +�i '?} L +.A. �.+ .y"Fi-f'2 - r. 1
s •. r Fri. +*.+ 1•
�,,��. n. �,�!iy '�. �t: s�✓'r r �.s.e _Y M.,�a y��,.�ry ft+ ir�"y4 ':'�3� �� ���1� ��i J
�.` �,�'sf,{.�.'�'J� +�J y*air w . �T `ti ,6�"�.lY%� �c*"� 2+' 'r+y_.rt'�> �..+.'^'✓� ac' 1�fit.r`"1 ,,.�-`7+''�1'
r'.��i' '`"'
.hs,i f�$ s r-•'£rY �. *.�t"e.F�,` I: Gf��'��'''"r to� `tyZ Y :y,ty '�"4 -{�� c
,> y! 6%;'. YYj1'� nYrsjfyG 'yy4+ . � x-• f�� f4` "
' �� �,fi ~°�`x,.��"}��'v��'�z%,ti�4;��t'�1-'�, f"+'� -,°'` ��� � •"r�xT ���`�.`y j��3. •xs�e 1"��„, � f�r4 r�
ys' y � 7r/��'�. •}' �'!�7,,�� t,� �r �V 33'��}",9 rt ,��"3--�v�P�i,]j�ts'Yy"ky�t'-{'4` _: � �
�:.aJY' r•r{,.Yy t., .F..�- � g ¢ Ie.Uear
a
p -
ii ..:ra'trhs'" .AE

PERMUTING FIELD REPOW
Division of Waste Management
Solid
Page 1 of 1
Picture 13, cap area B.
•.�i s 'S t af. l t
?{ < • . S + fie'. �� ,,.
. • are i
• The cap is graded in such a way that all water flow is from south to north and over flows the top
of ••' uncontrolled.

" �. V'+._.:1 R- .7, s,"- mat � _ - z 'S :�. > - •CA 71T^.
' +' V> � ``1. u f s. 4,'nr 'j �tala� .kyle.sP's ..�ra.''4�0.t}�•a+ P+'�
'•': �} ��;.US�p`�'Y- ..+®':. +uc'1, F+� �3 ` o � _ r�'_�'��t.�,,.r- .fit..*i : V:
�' .n. c C� �a�N'-Y .. 5=+�s '��. ':_[tf -`•'4jjs, ��tj 'e � �,7✓ay� n'�- .°�"yAi
S', . { � 1� ,�ry ��,r ,�rH' "" t ,r`� -yrs,.r•:iyl,; 'P� r k,
tv
L.'t
C
:l.
WMl R rA r u It i i vstR [ �sl ft. � tt i V f y�•'
to y�`tT`7c a �'-s�+ .,;d �}R,y,. a✓'r � ,,t� is
!Y � f,y. ..�" fx •2.>y'h`iT'.'- ,,,i c4,�Y�i` 1Y PP.i;� , ,�y r �T�. �}' .�V, r.,+,-r,
„6!
s ;'j-,�Tf �,+�, { e...Sga'r':4r{ , ,•: y., Sf ''1" "�S"5114",,., "'`J: a t },hip'""'{'y(
.•. 7. � ` �rU�y��.�"rF � .a+'� Y�,����t��=r`r,r+r�f�;(pr'V 1 :d 7 '.;2?``I'r S�_ 4�$,� 41'r 1`ti
`y -c, ; �' r.�.r .��,. ,�4. i' y... e'*�. '�r-,•,. t;,: '�` r.:. '' �';Si y
�+ v Sr�:_31i�e1',X Abe �x •- sy'S„H-` � t�.t 2'GrA�+-.1�k�.,¢U k :• r 1 ' yi'
Nos.,
3
t
z �� P�ma,a',s`''" a.T-. ��� ,y'"f� `��: � %sa. �"�t -rry "z+ "` �,. ' i�, ` }�r���tyy,,`�L�-�`� `'�`�e�' �•� s a�f
„�,�' £i'f�. ,��r :3 JF. .ltu'i'sL� -c4� ,e�{.ri'- 'F..:� �' 3 ,�-Z.•tt'.._ :t �i:.��va�-_'

-�-1--.r�r+�a n=;.s� Y 'wn*-•��i'ur �SY _ �i } 1 p.l.��.n„«�- - ^!.^e� -��tr K..` -
e
w
r 1 -.. IN
A
t1 ( .M _ `PM
_
`t-._r t ..f °' •t•rt,•r->+r - 1't+ {.!'_ � i" G `�€:si "�
vA
� #fdrF��ls,,,,
i09
��°:`���'� '� °� ,�G, `'` �p.s-.,K'�"'�.' !�'Si�'+�- F-°-t-�T�, 7�,f''' �,, w-..-... .4 ,s.•�-� fRhte�^�+sr`"l�r�'°-.�'R S-!�"�di
r :.[ 4 {'aatty.a�4K?a„ L r._ M;o.t� xF r ° "a>*c 'r'r•,L t s 'pT +>7vi4'"''� `"'" '
y �,ii' ! ,,,, '"' ""!_ `.+xr' �.'.r,�. * -+-- �a. '4� r*'t.s•.h -��c ,r- +a A.3
�xl ',t,,`%'�'L
i ' pit r.. N-'�' `r. a1. t �Xysa ,^ f•R ,.,..
s'.t4�'� -. 'T•..;�
fi't =G�*�"� �v � �.'z �i7.+1r y .�,t-*� fl--'i�''•'k+K?-'�'krl�y.f+�l r �.-Sd`�t�-�.gf � ",
Z.
c�
a .�.. C';-�' 4T' �r?�s- ".,,',`eYaS► `" 3t,. t ,,,a?lJ r.y.,r .t` �r �r,+,t .ra, a " a-s£ .� `"P�
'4..v ` +�'y. "rN,"C. p'e'"�+��,-l �tz
' �r1t ri �4..•a.
� +,7.K. �'h7 �.�"4'.�"��r'r. .,f' 'Il��r r[. n •t y� 1 t -,-.�R �.,f i�_ r �+r''�4z{ �3
*I +t��h}� ,r
lkL` se Yp, "Y •. i'' "`' F.k4P '
_ ',}ram.9t �F�! ` t -�F;y Sft. 'L�.t'"�a.-"'-"' 1 ��,�'�. Yk"+•- r4} �'.�'3,ff" '` �,(
ra- `k7 , n' ..v. < -+�.;. i'G,r ,✓ r >u_ } r �,�.c-- r ,. +.yf'��. x.f ;' "' 15.
s r t4S` y.
+'R S,y y'4i
i3 yr
Z T � f.i r•^i �y%i.4T �'"�.F'p%�- <i' -r 4 ++.iroF.'Y3^L: f " ,r a r z �_.,
� a she. 4.Sr
rlk ki
„y,
�,�> Y'ti .Y�� w n gad Y�, ad�:'b 1� r��' r 1.�.'c'k..1. �+� �"�;•t` '.'-""'-vit=��-�' ��,.;r}�et�.:�, F ^1.
r 7� 5rt. r
4
��,ff,„✓io A. +, a aft ~h a i`r 'y-�rtYfj'i"1 c' t toi`') Co. -.X' �t. :•"+v1 i �t3A
�'�;iA' �hJti"~�"�' �+.• 1 '� rsri�`'7*=K..' 1 i..j .I`�Y +'`7 .k�` {�- .T�'J+' I i� "'�y �i.� 4f �>.• 3 1�
+ �A7' � fj `� Y V�t�„dr��,E r t•m ii'�j\. � tr rr �. _ � 1 rs '.
��i "54�:�r d gg4,.t'� sr,".n;Y r*j�, �.r� r'�iy�,�,�.b.�-'�lrs -:, a j-a't� .,t}� ��'# t=:..+•'� �i4�aS`A�at x�_ a ,!� -
�',;..
4ft,4. 1 J t;-, t y t rpq e"y ip,C •t� J4 ,Y1 y� r.
l����i 3 �#/y 1�}�;��Fr i���� a �1 r,• °ik� r a, 1, � �,��`�+ , ;�r�'ttiA.r t ,,�
/� 4 h 7 `� .t �,�p l f!v � 'YJ r"'1. S,,'`. r a• 4.r �.r ',�. q' �+¢a
E �i r �d,.f�'�"x,"- 'J�lt./�' 1 '.t. � Y, �+,�r - , a'.i'�a- 4� r �Fs a ,1••� r�w'
1�W,4' .1 $ �`V� iriLlt ors ' 'sst�'x ? ry Ovn
LQ' r .y 1 `s i�Re°ifFFt J rry�ik 4 ft
�4r...xis ���
{` k FC} \� 11 •c LS�tt nl R >"r�`1
r` '' rJg7 „ � r tr ' 1t �"` r �r4'.> ➢ f. -r t
'�° � �f��r� i '�t S'�`t �'�4 i i '�s K��r M
^� .(y*j r / 1 �� f'�. d ,'; _�. G d1 :;t�
rs / '4 �.�r I' '� ^fit" "n" t?• 'i=' 't',
� ��,5 - u a� b '•.d f!r �" �,y�0,� a�r- i 1 �s N'rye<T�ft , �+ �j� r � ;�`
'� •'fi �, �R Y 1� �ii S , tIl /' +� s /'�
e- t�* ! J � a
i. #54 .-c`, t t- ��vyz7t r'.- t�'� ': J� r•1}r} .J-'•,� .-{ ,�'+��•'.r
t�_ ,,rti, b '�gt r��� �`a 'F •! r fir^ �1 '�r�� � 1 ,, '�z�' r�� rr 'r t� "�x.'
�
a 51 �s�� Y [x l� �<�;`� N
s¢r�r '' .�?' p is ��a "•`�`L t p f
1?.)�qi
F`� r"F•X ��:!' f`� st: , -�r�.,,..�: ,,. t �'Y,:' i! ..'v FkS�lE.,..,. t�'r�ka ��v T i�, '.ya t�L!a'
. �� '�. � �!(j,�fa ��,,�. � I. � �� , q s 3- - ;f,� t..i► r�a, n s'' J/�:rts/r.�t r�' :t y✓�`,c a,srf v���'!
INc�a+
,Cc.`•= a+£f r t s > j�R7 a r�. I � I 1 t 'i /�, i�`i�a lY+�i Nei

� '�'"' r av ••s {y A�,i���-a F� �r rt� J���� � t��� �� Fl � -a«��+ e�t .ar
''a! a t �4Y t't `r�4f5'�i<AJf ��rfr��+. .�"�; �'t�fy,� s�a`��'t+, r, .,�1,� R"sc�t � •, •1 i
ry5'ti'�"rVT
'r• -.>, '• 7 y'h.t� M� �'1,2'r ,�'�— � 'ICq � Ar/�J '•J � :�� , �
g 'see Y a
� .45's�- J :i
� m ,c*�,�r r�-s � �I 1j�.
'IL q
-
YA
^ .1} Cy`} rx✓� tt�� :i t Aq r �y �t7"u S' '
%r� cr«
-All .3C'%.:q 4 3, �Y' d c 'r ; ,ray.. €•Y�i
��57'+�r"'l-1�4 i.TY�+� 3i�„15��''�%,.5��_ ��f� '�.ai,� t • _ f " r�`G .. . ` '' ��°«« -..
�sz,�-`�L����`icx �;e�.��� k�r�c�l, ,���•ri��4 r ti � i•= f - r :r t•_ �� t� 1
a3ti y r r r ar k
p`.`f•#t>;'T .�}G.i�, l��� .,� �"f �t �:tsj + 4'+`' �F,1 '� t 5 - t I {,
i..?i'fiii1
' 7r„'a'_ r a j r� YJa y' ��itiS•�,dr�• ��i }��K i..�,�� i� �i :tt F f �` r�i 1 n� 5�.. �
+5 ^ +'� ..G •'!r•`.SJ y TK `ry�JPfr F3`{��� '�++X+`aif

rV i/k'+'`''"'' f+ye 5 M 1�f r; t rt ,.- •1 r' r « S �_ - ;-�-
.`'ii�+ .l+r•7 �+R�. i r[,, f c+t �,�'i R ', rr t',."'+, f n+ i"I� � Ya,i - '��-''` i; ���,
Vi
_..�i� 1r�YJ-+�'6 141 f . r ,tom . •1
�A�y YI l, A.f y7�*'f �}}� � , •S I ' � .I +i ...1. _ x
tt tifi}2 h fT.r*Ty� `d } t
P.�'A
1`s'�`ft �•+a a .yy- j' y ,c��` J� � '�� + fl f i ` -r ##9y,"� r`5� / +, t
,?I)f
= r
"° - 3` '_ i, ;U,n � 7� 1 ' �` I'�' • � , 5 ai,, f�'�� _Y fth 1_'.
W.
r b tt c } a i {I 1� (4;• SAI. i rf+ �V!5
f..r 4 1a '+ ,+ { �:. t tr'a I w tt �`•Ni
#�- N� .. d c., ,y '�.^'y'f Ir' �;� �Z i ♦ ' T i`�n fsi i : `�. if5' �4� �F + 4 •I
�ls� � � �• � ��S` f=d�1}' �.rl. ��.' '� I �y1. � ! �I 1y'•r M, l� � � 1?�.A' '�,y' + �ff"�^j j
� s� e• �� {Y�,�t�� t ,/.�l�j'�gy '++�, <7 '�- ,y t�/ - f ` •;i t i � y •:g t�:�'ii1-,f''! n q.-•f�' i-,'n 6_ •,ly!:
_ 7'. .Yr��� l 1 "ti. 4+C i t1 1 �7� + � -•� .Ii•Xf� ;� 5 s' , � C.+,,
Aer-`"^ ` kr t�'�''1'f �y� k; �I'
+�• T �+ �L ..��,�+'4 k�/?� �`7i'��A�11+ !"t,��.�� "K ra 5 rF l '•:
';.,..���ra�i! �+iSrXr[.=�`•'.. - �r "+�..��",t-`*a'�<+ �5'j�l,5t-`.I},`�Cl,��Ey{.',+�,``,�,,;� fSyS i�y+ L:"F`"'��'.� �.'�+,cFi'�t`•�,_i.f Tl

PERMIITING FIELD REPOR _
Division of Waste Management
Solid Waste Section
Page 15 of 15
Area C is the extension of the 60"RCP corridor through the fill.
• Area C has continuous surfacing water.
• Area C receives pipe flow.And there is evidence that the 60"RCP is under sized.
• Area C receives surface flow from both east and west cells, due to grading.
• Area C is probably receiving water from the ponded area described in cap area A.
Picture 18 Cap areas C&D.
Surfacing water
Bonded Water
Top of Slope
60" RCP
Cap Area Dar
• There indications of Ponded Water above the slope,noted above.
• Slopes appear steeper than 3 to 1.

s
PERMIITING FIELD REPOR•
Division of Waste Management
Solid Waste Section
Page 16 of 16
Picture 19, area of ponded water in cap area D
.. s'.4
�.,tl 5�+.�/s�"- . { c-
S L V _ � s
$�-2`�'li,;?„J.• rat -.�'� ?„o- ,f� .i+' - '• r,,� �'3j7r'3}� '"'1 <r -�� - •i,,,^a•y" i.�..'r`'a '._a91
s�.�,�°t` ro,-r.,,,r-�i �{`--� ..�j.���"4'+�.'SL_ "-,'t•�d.4 r..,� 'U t+.;f .�, w 4 t a� d � ; ��%� i�
� ►�•� a,�,`•C�� `e'���3s-. `t _ y3� _. 4 ��"•• �i�.,�> z A� '4-•q, 7 �ti���__a.-A�z;,�+�+�� •y,,'it+rng j'a,���
¢,-'�l IlI.iit'-''�' �µ' `��-►•� e Y� 1 F'7g7�� r'g�irr+ 7"'�' �•Syi„:`F
ttF
= y_ -t Y e. �/`a�i i r y ,33'3.d1-g 1'L��t,,,.�f) 7.}�.,�••�'�,dc+7 '�.fw,.4t s f�`-- x'�'..
mw
�y _ ' '-^�z�."'1?av�1 �� � "�r ads-✓4,Jc# 'ur�%j� F,7r. s 3�� a4 � � �
.ytJ.��'�
LS�.. s,•,y .. - 'w, t ,wl •sF..;�,� .J"'r'• ��. '>.+` }M at `4--,�}Y� t1�•F d ..c, � "il �rh� 7 '
IL f/�EA,,�5x %rXis� tr4 a �"F �� �1�fy1 �/�' �L• r r ,� "
-_ j�a ��t� 7't �.IN'� � � 'r•CCJ :I'�7 F rt'`�,� � y 1' ,�.ii.
I V ., r¢M y A'-?W' 'a �4 e t �F t ��°✓'2fs °r`3 '+ t�i r 4� r$_t fi �,
diy£ �� ��,..� -�,�� 1 •r r6.V�?J.I .<.tg� �' .�ayt,:, �.5���'�'r:��r r ��, r
.�j
i� ' a• �� ;� ter ICryi
1•��^t Jtiafi��"w'd_..__�;:',.�g ��� .fl-�f.�,�rz �5��: �a >; _ -•4. �t �"'�•.� _ ��€�:�.��,�. 9�i
Summary:
• The existing"cap" is questionable/inadequate. My observation/conclusion is that, what is in
place is more simple cover than engineered cap.
o It is not impervious.
o It is not graded properly.
o Water is ponded on top.
o There are many penetrations.
o There is no protection from run-off at the top of slopes. There are no slope drains.
o There is obvious damage to the side slope.
o Slopes are too,steep.
o As constructed cannot be maintained properly.
Recommendations:
0 The liner is GCL 1 x 10-9 permeability,therefore the cap should be of equal or less permeability.

, o
PERMIITING FIELD REPOR'
Division of Waste Management
Solid Waste Section
Page 17 of 17
o Geosynthetic composite cap should be required.
• A cap should be designed/engineered for installation in Areal.
o Engineering plans should be developed
o Construction Quality Assurance plans developed
o The Department should review all plans submitted.
• The 60"RCP should be investigated to ensure adequate capacity and possible relocated to the
perimeter of the fill.
o There is evidence that the airport stormwater system is being overwhelmed by the
addition of off-site sources, such as the Lowes parking lot on the east side of I-26.

r. Y
Laverty, Brett
From: Frost, Larry
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2018 7:53 AM
To: [e-mail]; Laverty, Brett
Subject: Fwd: Asheville Airport Area#1 Structural Fill
Ming's input
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Mussler, Ed
Sent:Tuesday, May 1,2018 7:36:04 AM
To: Chao, Ming-tai; Frost, Larry; Aufman, Shannon E
Subject: RE:Asheville Airport Area#1 Structural Fill
Great work Ming! Thanks so much.We are lucky to have such a highly qualified engineer working with us.
Good job, Ed
From: Chao, Ming-tai
Sent: Monday,April 30, 2018 10:23 PM
To: Frost, Larry<[e-mail]>; Mussler, Ed<[e-mail]>;Aufman,Shannon E
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:Asheville Airport Area#1 Structural Fill
Dear all:
Below are my inputs:
1. 1. The investigation report prepared by Geosyntec has never touch the fundamental issue of the interface
shear strength(friction angle)between the compacted 2-feet-thick soil (CCL)/clay cap and GCL at sloped
area. Did the contractor or Geosyntec run any test(ASTM D 6243)to verify the interface shear strength of soil
and GCL initial and after failure (slough) since the side slope is 3 (horizontal)to 1 (vertical). The long duration
of wet weather in 2017 may saturate the soil and GCL and contribute the local slope failure. If the interface
angle between soil cap and GCL is less than 19 degree,the slope is doom to be failed. The angle shall be at
least 28 degree (FS =1.5).
2. 2. In addition to lack of drainage layer at slope area as concluded in the Report prepared by Geosyntec, the
north area/Are 1 is the downgradient of the original "drainage valley." The GCL encapsulating CCR forms a
narrow passage between GCL and existing bank which allows (forces) any percolated flow from the either side
of banks into the gravel column/trench around 60-in-diameter CRP draining downstream (Refer Figure 2 of 8,
Vaughan, 2016). Geosynthetec installed a PZ-2 to measure water table elevation below GCL but inside the
man-made flow path; I would recommend to install two piezometers, one upstream and one downstream(near
the slope failure area) along the RCP alignment. The piezometer shall terminate inside the gravel bed. The
water table measurements at both wells will tell if any significant change of energy gradient in the gravel bed
during the raining seasons. The flow condition in the gravel bed is highly possible to become a"confined flow"
condition, (it will be different from the original design—unconfined flow condition or open channel
condition). The flow discharging at exit point(near failure area) may not be a gravity flow any more (different
from those shown on Figure 3 of 8) but"eddy" or some form of turbulent flow. The Area 1 is adjacent to the
discharge point, and turbulent flow may wash away or distrurb the soil cap toe via increasing pore water
1

pressure. It warrants to verify the energy gradient inside gravel bed when raining season comes.
(it is interest to know Duke just loves underdrain system)
3. 3. In fact,the slope is moving and unstable (locally at least),which is likely a veneer slope/shallow surface
movement(based on the slope pin data), not deep seated/global slope failure (based on the slope indicator
data). I think Duke did the correct remedial action to reinforce the toe with rip rap mattress. Additionally, I will
recommend Duke to conduct the following tasks ASAP so the slope may hold when the slope dry up in the
upcoming drought season:
a. Improvement of existing stormwater system. If the stormwater drainage system (at least temporary one) is
function properly, there will be no standing water on top of the slope/deck portion (cut down the water
infiltration to the interface between GCL and CCL at slope area). b. Reduction or bench the slope length
coupling with drainage and erosion BMPs. I don't have the scaled map to measure the slope length, but rule of
thumb, the slope length(parallel to slope) shall not exceed 100 -150 feet for a 3 to 1 slope. Construct
terrace/bench to reduce slope length coupling with lateral drainage/down slope drain system. Of course, the new
slope must be vegetated ASAP.
4. 4. The data collected from 2017 are used in this report; but the wet weather in this early 2018 may or may not
worsen the slope condition. Does Duke continue the monitoring data collection? I think they should continue
monitoring the slope infinitely.
Ming
From: Frost, Larry
Sent: Monday,April 30, 2018 9:40:05 AM
To: Mussler, Ed; Chao, Ming-tai;Aufman,Shannon E
Subject:Asheville Airport Area#1 Structural Fill
Folks
I am in need of assistance. I have been given the following documents to review and would appreciate if you would take
a look as well;
https://ncconnect.sharepoint.com/:f:/r/sites/deg ext/dwm ccr/Asheville/AVL%20Area%231%20SF?csf=1&e=MUeflb
Background;
This is a structural fill (coal ash-CCR),that is"piping" CCR at the toe of the slope,the ash is assumed to be contaminating
surface and ground water.What you have in this link is all the structural analysis we have.
I have a meeting tomorrow and any thoughts/insights you have will be appreciated,
Larry Frost
Engineering Project Manager
Division of Waste Management, Solid Waste Section
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
[phone] office
[phone] mobile
Iarry.frostCcD-ncdenr.gov
Asheville Regional Office
2090 US Highway 70
Swannanoa, North Carolina 28778
2

Laverty, Brett
From: Laverty, Brett
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 9:58 AM
To: 'Toepfer, John R'; 'Michael A. Reisman'
Cc: Davidson, Landon ([e-mail]); Wooten, Rick; Culpepper, Linda; Holman,
Sheila; Risgaard, Jon; Zimmerman, Jay
Subject: Asheville Airport Area 1 90-Day Report Review Comments
Attachments: Asheville Airport Area 1 90-Day Report Review Comments-April 30 2018.pdf
Mr.Toepfer and Mr. Reisman,
Attached is the 90-day report review comments for the Asheville Airport Area 1 CCP structural fill.At some point in the
very near future,we will need to convene a technical meeting to discuss the action items contained in the attached
correspondence. Please let me know your availability and preference for a meeting location. I am available if you have
any 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.Qov
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778
--'*"Nothinq Compares,-..-
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
1

�•° ROY COOPER
y. Governor
MICHAEL S.REGAN
, Seerelor;v
Water Resources LINDA CULPEPPER
Environmental Quality Interim Director
April 30, 2018
Mr. Paul Draovitch—SVP, Environmental, Health &Safety
Duke Energy Progress, Inc.
526 South Church Street, EC3XP
Charlotte, N.C. 28202
Lew Bleweis,A.A.E., Executive Director
Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority
61 Terminal Drive, Suite 1
Fletcher, N.C. 28732
Subject: Review of 90-Day Report Submittal and Required Interim Measures
Duke Energy Progress, Inc.
Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority
Asheville Airport Structural Fill —Area 1
NOV-2017-PC-0616 (incident#201701440) and
NOV-2018-DV-0101 (Incident#201800515)
Permit No.WQ0000020
N.C.G.S. § 143-215.1(a)(1)
Dear Mr. Draovitch and Mr. Bleweis,
On November 17, 2017,the Division of Water Resources (DWR) issued a Notice of Violation
(NOV-2017-PC-0616)to Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (Duke)for a failure/breach of the soil cap
and exposure of coal ash at the Area 1 coal combustion product (CCP) structural fill (fill) located
at the Asheville Regional Airport"(See Figure 1). NOV-2017-PC-0616 required an initial
assessment of the 18-acre CCP fill, installation of short-term corrective measures, and submittal
of a 90-day report summarizing assessment findings. Duke submitted a series of site
assessment documents on December 29, 2017 in response to NOV-2017-PC-0616.
On April 11, 2018, DWR issued Duke and the Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority
(Airport) an NOV (NOV-2018-DV-0101) for discharge of waste without a permit based upon
analytical results of a water sample obtained from a flowing seep located at the base of the
Area 1 CCP fill.
DWR is providing the following additional regulatory requirements and technical review
comments to both Duke and the Airport.The requirements and review comments are arranged
by topic for ease of reference. Figures and tables referenced in the following comments may be
found in Appendix A.
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
2090 U.S.Highway 70,Swannanoa,North Carolina 28778
828-296-4500

Draovitch/Bleweis
April 30,2018
Page 2 of 35
Required Interim Measures
Based on our review of the existing assessment documents and field observations, the DWR is
requiring that Duke and the Airport initiate interim measures to abate the discharge of waste
and ensure slope stability.These measures are required while additional assessment activities
are being completed. The interim measures provided below must be completed before the
close of business on May 31, 2018:
1. Submit a temporary stabilization plan and timeline based on the recommendations
contained in the Engineering Analysis Report;
2. Review the existing stormwater drainage along the crown of the east cell and submit a
plan to divert this runoff away from the fill slope;
3. Evaluate short-term engineering measures to ensure slope stability including, but not
limited to, lowering of the phreatic surface to reduce the internal pore water pressure
(e.g., dewatering); and,
4. Continue slope stability monitoring as outlined in item 7 of the corrective action
response.
90-Day Submittal Review Comments—Site Hydrogeology
According to the Geosyntec Engineering Analysis Report (Engineering Analysis Report), water
has infiltrated the CCP fill and is now pooling (phreatic surface) above the geosynthetic clay
liner (GCL) at depths ranging from 10 ft. to 13 ft. Water in contact with coal ash, or CCP
leachate, is moving downslope along the top of the GCL and discharging to a Class B stream and
tributary to the French Broad River known locally as Hidden Creek.This phreatic surface is also
responsible for saturating portions of the CCP fill slope and creating or contributing to the
conditions that precipitated the shallow sliding (veneer)failure of the soil cap. There is evidence
that the source of the phreatic surface is a combination of infiltrating stormwater and baseflow
(piezometric surface) infiltration.
The Engineering Analysis Report tentatively identified the source of the phreatic surface as
infiltrating stormwater due to an underperforming soil cap and the lack of structural fill cap
development (e.g., impervious surface, asphalt, etc.). Despite a proposed engineered clay cap
with a minimum Ksat value of 1.12 X 10-5 cm/sec, the current soil cap is thinner than previously
communicated by former Progress Energy, and ranges from silty sand to sandy silt intermixed
with gravels, cobbles, and other coarse demolition debris (e.g., asphalt, concrete, iron pipe,
etc.). According to the Engineering Analysis Report and the Alpha-Omega Environmental
Management Leachate Evaluation Report [2009],the contractor Charah, Inc. (Charah) never
designed the soil cap to deter stormwater infiltration and was aware that CCP leachate
generation and discharge from the CCP fill were distinct possibilities.The hangar facility(73%
impervious surface) proposed for the top of the structural fill was never built but nonetheless
was intended to play a key performance role in managing runoff and reducing infiltration.
Without this final impervious cap, stormwater continues to infiltrate and drain towards the
vulnerable CCP fill slope resulting in the continued erosion of the soil cap, a phreatic surface
above the GCL, and subsequent seepage face development.

Draovitch/Bleweis
April 30,2018
Page 3 of 35
The CCP fill permanently.impacted 1,535 linear feet of perennial streams, 138 feet of
intermittent streams,and 0.359 acres of wetland (See Figure 2).The existing north-south
trending stream was routed through a 1,600-ft. reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) installed
between the east and west fill cells.A limited hydrogeologic investigation was conducted in
2008 to evaluate the seasonal high-water table (SHWT) and establish a base elevation to verify
the 2-ft. setback requirement in 15A NCAC 02T.1206.The Silar Services Hydrogeologic
Assessment Report (hydrogeologic investigation) concluded that the SHWT was approximately
seven to eight feet below the existing ground surface (2,106.7 ft. ASL) at monitoring well MW2
(See Figure 3).
The initial hydrogeologic investigation did not assess the local hydrogeology and did not
account for the extensive drought conditions (2007—2009) affecting Buncombe County prior to
and during the investigation.The monthly drought index(North Carolina Drought Management
Advisory Council)for Buncombe County ranged from severe to exceptional during the entire
two-year period (See Table 1);furthermore,the five months leading up to the investigation
were categorized as exceptional drought conditions.The annual rainfall statistics for the
Asheville Airport identified 2007 as the 3rd driest year and 2008 as the 7th driest year in 34
years of precipitation monitoring(See Table 2). The hydrogeologic investigation likely
underestimated the elevation of the SHWT relative to the proposed base elevation of the CCP
fill.
A north-south cross section was developed for the CCP fill (See Figures 4—6).The cross-section
model contains the location of select monitoring wells and piezometers; station section lines
from the as-built plans [Vaughn Engineering, March 2010]; the elevation of the GCL at the
intersection of each station section line;the lowest GCL elevation along each station section
line;the GCL elevations encountered at PZ-3, INC-1, and PZ-2; the March 2008 potentiometric
surface; the November 2017 piezometric/potentiometric surface; and the November 2017
phreatic surface.A comparison of the 2008 and the 2017 potentiometric/piezometric surfaces
indicates the water table has rebounded approximately 10 ft. to 15 ft. and is exceeding the
elevation of the GCL at multiple locations.
The Engineering Analysis Report concluded that the water surface elevations within PZ-5 and
PZ-6, at the slope toe, are measured above those measured in piezometer PZ-2, which suggests
that the phreatic surface within the CCR of the east fill is not hydraulically connected to the
underlying groundwater. Further investigation will be needed to determine whether the
piezometric surface and the phreatic surface are hydraulically connected. It has been
demonstrated that the piezometric surface has risen to the base of the CCP fill and pore water
pressure is likely increasing beneath portions of the GCL(e.g., SPT-2/PZ-2). The GCL was
installed as a series of overlapping panels that were not bonded together (See Figure 7).The
seams between these overlapped panels is a point of weakness for sliding and displacement .
failures that could allow for communication between the underlying piezometric surface and
the CCP fill.Additionally, elevated hardness (calcium& magnesium ions) associated with the
CCP leachate can replace sodium ions in the GCL's bentonite structure, reducing the tendency

Draovitch/Bleweis
April 30,2018
Page 4 of 35
of the bentonite to swell and increasing the overall hydraulic conductivity.The water level at
PZ-2 indicates areas of separation between the phreatic and piezometric surfaces but a
complete separation has yet to be confirmed.Therefore, DWR is suggesting the possibility that
a source for the phreatic surface is a combination of stormwater and baseflow infiltration.
Additional assessment is necessary to fully understand how groundwater is moving through the
buried stream valley and interacting with the fill.The areas south and west of the fill are
relatively flat-lying but the east-side of the fill is bordered by greater relief(See Figure 8).
Therefore, based on topography alone, one could assume greater hydraulic head/pore water
pressure on the east-side of the CCP fill. In the Blue Ridge-Piedmont groundwater system,flow
direction is largely controlled by saturated fractures that direct groundwater towards discrete
discharge zones near the land surface such as seepage springs and bank seepage into stream,
lakes, and wetlands. Remnants of a pre-existing wetland and perennial stream complex
[perennial stream C;wetlands CC] are located near the toe of the east cell and extend directly
underneath the current slope failure (See Figure 2). A 2008 potentiometric surface map shows
the hydraulic gradient flowing from the southeast to the northwest towards the wetland
complex (See Figure 9). A piezometer and two monitoring wells near this wetland complex are
exhibiting higher hydraulic heads in comparison to other nearby groundwater/phreatic surface
monitoring locations, which may indicate greater pore water pressure on the east-side of the
CCP fill and possibly underneath the GCL. Supporting evidence is provided in the bulleted items
below:
• Monitoring well MW2 [2008 hydrogeological investigation] was located next to
piezometer PZ-4(See Figure 2). Water table elevations at MW2 were 12 ft. to 20 ft.
higher as compared to a corresponding up gradient monitoring well [MW-3]'that was
situated significantly higher [30 ft.] in the landscape (See Figure 3; Table 3);
• The phreatic surface elevation at piezometer PZ-4 is 8 ft. to 12 ft. higher as compared to
other nearby piezometers that terminate above the GCL(See Table 4); and,
• Compliance monitoring well MW-2A is located adjacent to the wetland complex (See
Figure 2).This down gradient monitoring well has exhibited artesian conditions since
groundwater monitoring began in November 2009. Water table elevations are
consistently 2 ft. to 3 ft. above the land surface (See Table 5). In comparison, water table
elevations at an adjacent [downgradient] monitoring well (MW1A) are 4 ft. to 5 ft.
below land surface (See Table 5).
The existing information on the hydrogeologic framework and the underlying geologic materials
is inadequate.The response(s) of the water levels above and below the GCL to rainfall scenarios
(short and long-term) is not well understood. A robust hydrogeologic framework and
conceptual model(s) combined with the timing and patterns of rainfall and their influence on
groundwater levels will be the primary drivers of further studies of slope stability, CCP leachate
discharge, risk assessment, and corrective actions.

Draovitch/Bleweis
April 30,2018
Page 5 of 35
90-Day Submittal Review Comments—Surface Water Investigation
Immediately north of the fill slope is a 3-acre area containing remnant wetlands and streams
that were present prior to construction as well as storm water basins and access roads that
remained after construction (See Figure 10). Despite the alterations to the pre-existing drainage
patterns,this area remains an active groundwater discharge area with numerous seep heads
and areas of diffuse seepage. In addition, this area receives discharges consisting of baseflow
and stormwater from south of the CCP fill (airport terminal)via the RCP.
Seepage from the sliding failure and saturated area at the base of the east fill slope is
discharging towards the central stormwater basin (See Figure 10). Discharge measured at the
central basin outlet (4.3 GPM) indicates more baseflow leaving the basin then can be accounted
for at the two flowing seeps (1.0 GPM). Diffuse groundwater seepage associated with the
buried RCP corridor is discharging into the west basin as well as directly to Hidden Creek
upstream of the RCP outlet.
On November 1, 2017, consultants SynTerra Corp (SynTerra) and ARO staff conducted a surface
water investigation north of the CCP fill and along Hidden Creek. A total of 8 surface water sites
were sampled for CCP constituents (See Figure 11). Based on the sampling results (See Table 6),
the area north of the CCP fill slope is a mixing area for CCP leachate, urban stormwater, and
natural baseflow that discharges to Hidden Creek.
90-Day Submittal Review Comments—Slope Stability Investigation
The Engineering Analysis Report concludes that the veneer failure at the base of the east cell
was likely the result of infiltrated water(phreatic surface) discharging to the failure location and
saturating the soil cap material resulting in the development of seepage face, which triggered
the veneer failure of the soil cap. As long as the phreatic surface remains,the CCP fill slope will
be vulnerable to ongoing seepage face development and future slope failures. If measures are
not taken to lower the phreatic surface and reduce the internal pore water pressure, the slope
may progressively degrade towards a global and/or base sliding type failure.
One aspect of slope stability that has not been investigated is the possibility that increased pore
water pressure from beneath the GCL is contributing in some manner to the development of a
phreatic surface within the fill and/or serving as another type of failure scenario. Understanding
the relationship between the increased pore water pressures (phreatic and piezometric) is
extremely important for reliable slope stability modeling particularly where the factors of safety
for the veneer(cap) stability are less than 1.0 for cross sections B and C (0.9 and 0.8
respectively). Integrated analysis of the data is needed from the existing compliance monitoring
wells, newly installed piezometers, continuous water level loggers, geochemistry of the
groundwater and surface water monitoring sites, and precipitation data.This integrated
analysis will be key to understanding the groundwater system that surrounds the CCP fill, its
controls on slope stability (and discharge of CCP leachate), and the appropriate corrective
actions.

Draovitch/Bleweis
April 30,2018
Page 6 of 35
Another important issue is the poor surface drainage across the soil cap. The crown was
originally constructed as a'building platform with a 2.5% descending grade towards the CCP fill
slope. Nearly 75%of the crown was to be covered by an impervious cap of hangars and asphalt
and separate stormwater management systems to limit runoff and infiltration. What remains is
an undeveloped and thinly covered CCP fill that continues to degrade because of ineffectual .
stormwater management and poor cap performance, which promotes infiltration and phreatic
surface development.
Water diversion structures and a rock-lined channel were recently installed along the crest of
the west cell as a result of an erosion-induced breach of the soil cap and exposure of CCP in
2015 (NOV-2015-PC-0303). However, stormwater continues to drain towards the east fill slope
unabated resulting in the continued formation of rills and gullies. Our main concern is that an
already weakened/saturated CCP fill slope remains vulnerable to a high intensity and/or
prolonged rainfall event (e.g., tropical cyclone) in which the slope erodes or fails resulting in the
exposure of CCP. What follows could be a dynamic situation in which headward erosion cuts
deeper into the CCP fill leading to a potential catastrophic failure and release of CCP.
It is important to note that the existing slope failure(s) occurred in the absence of extreme
meteorological events, such as rainfall in excess of 10 inches or more within 24 hours, an
amount consistent with tropical cyclones that have passed over western North Carolina (See
Figure 12). Back-to-back tropical cyclones within 8 days to 12 days of each other passed over
western North Carolina in July 1916, August 1940, and September 2004, each with rainfall more
than 10 inches within 24 hours. The average frequency of large rain events with sufficient
intensity to impact modified slopes is estimated at 17.5 years (See Figure 12).
Further slope stability analyses are warranted as the existing analyses does not adequately
show all potential failure scenarios that could affect the CCP fill, and the probabilities that they
might occur. Examples include:
• Conditions where the underlying piezometric surface penetrates the GCL and what
effect that may have on stability during earthquake loading;
• Locations where the internal angles of friction (V) for the CCP are possibly less than
the 340 used in the stability analysis; and,
• Stability of the RCP corridor backfill that was not assessed in the Engineering
Analysis Report.
90-Day Submittal Review Comments—Slope Monitoring
To date, the results of the slope pin monitoring surveys are inconclusive. Distinctions between
the actual movements of slope pins above the 0.1-ft. of displacement and survey error cannot
be made with confidence. Geosyntec suggested that 0.2-ft. of pin movement is a better
indication of slope displacement.

Draovitch/Bleweis
April 30,2018
Page 7 of 35
The Engineering Analysis Report states a slight scarp was observed upslope of slope pins D3 and
E3 in earlier inspections, but this area does not appear to have visually moved in subsequent
inspections. As such, the computed movement in slope pins D3 and F3 was considered the result
of small settlements or sand washout during subsequent rainfall events and not an indication of
additional soil cap failure. Visual observations at the temporary repair area indicate settlement
of the temporary rip rap cover which is incrementally exposing more of the original scarp.
Minor soil cracking was also observed near pin D3. From our standpoint, it is uncertain if the
observed settlement is the result of sand washout beneath the geotextile-rip rap cover, piping
of CCP and/or further displacement of the scarp.
Observations made by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) and
Geosyntec identified an area of apparent vertical displacement (scarp) in the soil cap material
which includes the area from monitoring pins A6 to E5 (See Figure 13). Coincidentally, possible
lateral movement and subsidence of monitoring pins are shown for this area (See Figure 14).
The Engineering Analysis Report shows factors of safety of 1.8 for a veneer failure that would
encompass the area of this scarp.The presence of this scarp indicates the occurrence of past,
and possible future, slope movement in this area that would correspond to a factor of safety
less than 1.
You are required to provide an explanation of the apparent discrepancy between the modeled
factor of safety of 1.8 and the past instability evidenced by this scarp. Please address the
conditions that led to the formation of the scarp that are not accounted for in the slope stability
analysis.
90-Day Submittal Review Comments—Slope Stability Analysis
The sensitivity analysis presented in the slope stability study is incomplete because potential
worst-case slope stability scenarios have not been identified and quantified. Figure 15
(estimated drained friction angle versus elevation) shows calculated estimates of CCP friction
angles (0') ranging from about 200 to 450 as determined by the Hatanaka and Ushida (1996)
method. The O'CCP of 340 used in the slope stability analyses is approximately the average of
the values of VCCP shown in Figure 15, and is the value chosen by Geosyntec based on their
experience with CCP. Shear strength testing (e.g., triaxial testing) was not completed on the
CCP as part of the 90-day corrective action measures. It is recognized that the estimation of the
drained friction angle by the Hatanaka and Ushida (1996) method based on standard
penetration test (SPT) relationships is limited with respect to determining actual values of
O'CCP.
The application of this method in the Engineering Analysis Report, however, shows that a range
of values of O'CCP can be expected in the CCP fill. It is reasonable to expect that lower density
CCP, and subsequently lower values of O'CCP would occur:
• In areas of the north slope affected by phreatic groundwater above the GCL, and where
overburden pressures (that would lead to consolidation of the CCP) would be less

Draovitch/Bleweis
April 30,2018
Page 8 of 35
(Note: SPT sampling and testing was not done on the north slope as part of the
Geosyntec study); and
• At other locations as indicated by the SPT sampler advancing under its own weight (e.g.,
WOH interval on boring log SPT-2).
A O'CCP of 340 may be reasonable for analyzing the stability of'average' or overall conditions
of the CCP fill; however, it may not adequately represent the stability of areas of low density,
wet CCP outside of the norm. Values of O'CCP lower than 340 would result in lower factors of
safety (i.e., less stable conditions). The sensitivity analysis should include stability analyses using
a reasonable,worst case lower value for VCCP within portions of the CCP fill.
You are required to provide a response to the following observations:
• As stated in the report,the SLIDE TM software used in the stability analysis can identify
'critical slip surfaces' with the lowest factors of safety. Although it is implied that the
analyzed slip surface presented in Figure 7-18 are 'critical slip surfaces/ please clarify if
this is the case; and
• What GCL geometry relative to the toe berm is used for the stability analyses?The GCL
interface geometry is uncertain in this area on Figures 4-18 stability analysis cross
sections. Is it correct to assume that the GCL is between the CCP and the 2H:1V interior
slope of the toe berm, and anchored with a toe trench?
90-Day Submittal Review Comments—Geosynthetic Clay liner
The elevation of the GCL in the subsurface may vary from that portrayed in the "As-built" cross
sections. Along cross section NS1 (See Figure 5) the elevation of the GCL, as documented in the
boring logs for SPT-2/PZ-2 and SPT-3/PZ-3, is estimated to be roughly 2 ft.to 4 ft. lower than
the GCL elevation projected onto the section from adjacent "As-built" cross sections. Local
variability in the elevation of the GCL may also occur. The elevation of the GCL shown in the
boring log for INC-1 (inclinometer boring) is roughly 5 feet higher in elevation than the
elevation shown in the boring log for SPT-3/PZ-3. INC-1 and SPT-3/PZ-3 are about 12 feet apart
on the McKim & Creed site survey map.The apparent differences in the GCL elevations noted
above may be due in part to some error inherent in determining the precise elevations from
borings.The actual elevations of the GCL are relevant to the stability analyses of the CCP fill,
and determining the extent to which groundwater beneath the CCP fill is in contact with the
GCL.
90-Day Submittal Review Comments—RCP Corridor
The slope stability of the RCP corridor was not fully investigated. Available information shows
that there is seepage on the slope face of the RCP corridor and loose to very loose backfill
material within the corridor at depth, conditions that indicate the potential for slope instability.

Draovitch/Bleweis
April 30,2018
Page 9 of 35
NCDEQ has observed a seepage area on each of the 8 site visits near elevation 2,106 ft. on the
access road along the RCP corridor slope face (See Figure 16). Groundwater discharge may
originate from above and/or beneath the GCL at this location resulting in a seepage face in this
portion of the RCP backfill.
Standard penetration test (SPT) blow counts indicate that-the RCP backfill material (silty sand)
encountered in boring SPT-2A is moist and loose to very loose with the SPT sampler advancing
under the weight of the hammer (WOH on boring logs) from 28 ft.to 30 ft. below the ground
surface (elev. —2215-2113 ft.) at the borehole termination. This very loose zone in SP-2A
corresponds with a very loose, (WOH) zone in the CCP encountered at the same elevation in
SPT-2, which is located about 50 feet east.
You are required to provide an explanation as to whether the RCP, surrounding fill and drainage
aggregate system was constructed to serve as an adequate underdrain over the long term,
rather than just a conveyance for surface water runoff? What is the potential for clogging of the
drainage aggregate surrounding the RCP?
90-Day Submittal Review Comments—Corrective Action Response
Based on the previous comments,the following areas are to be addressed by Duke and the
Airport through additional assessment in an effort to support a remedial strategy:
1. Hydrogeologic conceptual model development—The DWR is requiring the development
of a hydrogeologic conceptual model for the CCP fill.The model should include, but is
not limited to,the following framework components: RCP corridor, the phreatic surface,
piezometric surface, potentiometric.surface,the GCL, engineered base below GCL,the
adjacent stream valley, area north of the CCP fill, alluvium, residuum, saprolite,
transition zone, and fractured bedrock.
2. Piezometric surface investigation -The DWR is requiring confirmation of the extent and
elevation of the piezometric surface beneath the GCL, and address the impacts that it
has on the following:
a) The sources and extent of phreatic groundwater above the GCL (i.e., a leaking GCL);
b) Slope stability(i.e., wetland complex/groundwater discharge area near east cell);
c) The long-term performance of the RCP and the earthen fill around it;
d) The discharge of CCP leachate; and
e) The mixing of groundwater above and below the GCL.
3. Monitoring well installation -The DWR is requiring the installation of two groundwater

Draovitch/Bleweis
April 30,2018
Page 10 of 35
monitoring wells on the east review boundary and one monitoring well on the north
review boundary near the CCP leachate discharge (SW8-Al). You are required to
coordinate the location of these monitoring wells with the DWR regional office.
4. Piezometric and phreatic surface monitoring -The DWR is requiring the placement of
continuous water level transducers at piezometers PZ-2, PZ-3, PZ-4, and PZ-5. Hourly
water level data will need to be paired with hourly rainfall data from the gauge at the
Airport.The water level data will need to be corrected for barometric pressure and
reported monthly to the ARO in the form of an electronic spreadsheet. The DWR would
like to discuss the installation of additional piezometers in the fill to further assess the
piezometric and phreatic surfaces. Utilization of other technologies (e.g., geophysics)
should be evaluated.
5. Saturated hydraulic conductivity investigation -The DWR is requiring an evaluation of
the existing KSAT for the CCP fill soil cap (east and west cells) and the RCP corridor soil
cap.
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.
7. Slope stability monitoring-The DWR is requiring continued monthly slope stability
monitoring which includes the following:
a) Slope monitoring pins: monthly frequency in the existing array unless observations
and/or monitoring data indicate changes in the movement locations and/or
accelerated rates. Please report pin locations as surveyed, pin movement greater
than 0.2 feet, and qualify the survey error.
b) Please increase the pin displacement reporting tolerance to 0.2-ft. per the
recommendation in the Engineering Analysis Report.
c) Inclinometer: monthly frequency unless observations and/or monitoring data
indicate changes in the movement locations and/or accelerated rates. Please report
tilt change (incremental displacement), profile change (cumulative displacement),
and findings of any systematic errors in inclinometer data (e.g., those identified from
diagnostic plots).
d) Visual slope inspections at monthly intervals unless observations and/or monitoring
data indicate changes in the movement locations and/or accelerated rates.
e) Piezometers: monthly depth to water readings paired with daily rainfall rates from
the rain gauge at the Asheville Airport.

i
Draovitch/Bleweis
April 30,2018
Page it of 35
f) Mapping of any new slope movement features, groundwater discharge features
(e.g., springs, seeps, upwellings), and CCP exposure or discharge areas.
g) A quarterly monitoring report bearing the seal of a North Carolina licensed engineer
is required to be sent to the ARO for review at the end of each quarter.
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 backfill 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
CCP friction angles (a)').
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.
10. Surface water monitoring—The DWR is requiring quarterly surface water monitoring at
the following sites: SW2-A1, SW3-Al,SW4b-A1,SW5-A1, SW6-A1,SW8-AI, SW9-A1,
and SW12-Al. Samples should include both total and dissolved samples and be analyzed
for CCP constituents. When practical, sampling should be conducted at base flow
conditions to the maximum extent possible and at least 5 days after a rain event of any
magnitude.
11. Assessment of surface water—The DWR is requiring a one-time monitoring event of
select surface water sites to determine violations of 2B surface water standards using
the criteria for hardness-dependent freshwater metals outlined in 15A NCAC 02B .0211
(11). Monitoring sites will include SW3-A1, SW4b-A1, SW5-A1,SW8-A1, SW9-A1, and
SW12-Al. Samples should be analyzed for CCP constituents. When practical, sampling
should be conducted at base flow conditions to the maximum extent possible and at
least 5 days after a rain event of any magnitude.
12. Analytical results—DWR is requiring Duke to provide a copy of the analytical results
from a November 29, 2017 surface water investigation on the north-side of the CCP fill.
13. Camera inspection - DWR is requiring Duke to provide a copy of the 2018 camera
inspection of the RCP (60-in.) underneath the CCP fill. Please also include an engineering
evaluation of the findings of the survey.

Draovitch/Bleweis
April 30,2018
Page 12 of 35
The DWR is requiring a response to the comments and questions contained in this review and a
work plan and timeline to address the corrective action items listed above. Your response must
be submitted to the ARO before the close of business on May 31,2018.
It is also suggested that we convene a technical meeting to discuss the topics and corrective
action items contained in this review.
Should you have any questions regarding these matters, please feel free to contact me or
Regional Supervisor Landon Davidson at [phone].
Sincerely,
E�2 DocuSigneed by:
8F6E55D512AE438...
Brett Laverty
Water Quality Regional Operations
Asheville Regional Office
ec: Michael Reisman—Asheville Regional Airport Authority
John Toepfer—Duke Energy
DEQ DWR CO
WQAsheville Files
WQ,Enforcement/Non Discharge(laserfiche)

Appendix A

lY •, �f4�1 °..
v4 y�yT214
7jy77({)` yq *i i`1
r
'�� ¢;.i' �,:A•.r,,,E4.,y<r'�jf_ � � ..=� 'r � ,� � 'l.rd.'�i;��y� y I _
�•" � xt � ifs _Y..- 3 �� J
+."
Aar _
i -
1 ' M
}F r
r \ \ t \\ M,
OV
TA
- 1
/ ��•���„�` � {j, `tip �. - ,'h,;•r� ,°\ �

Draovitch/Bleweis
April 30,2018
Page 15 of 35
Figure 2: Overlay of the structural fill aerial photo,groundwater/phreatic surface monitoring
points, and surface water/wetlands delineation map (pre-existing conditions). 2015 ortho-
imagery map base. Prepared by NC Geologic Survey.
"` "` r_a. c„- -,i • •fl ti'" f l tr y Y1�
k� {A�a ty ��lR4y i
17 i t` \
\i7Y.�
DMikt 9 eai at t�
''.� Ar 1 �'3#C. 3" y
ti r �,..,.. t E3CulvFerL! r1 1 DP ,t„'.Y`` �•r f �9. '\� ���� - fit 1.�.c`t
" �' XX
Cy:.
t Ittettt[51 Ali • Y �rUR - 1�r PZ
PZ
1��, W Saari'" ap Y r SPT
PZ-44
R" o m. INC-1 Hand 99— r%
2 ,1.66 AP2• '�W 5Ei009 acre G `���;
t M 1 k •y € s r
Watl
�?� O Oa8 oars Y 4 i mfd#—
SP_.T 2A
\ Mkt
14
fIPZ
• y n �E nfal tremn 7¢
jq 8 ear aet
etlartd FF— f
n Yt Y s;u i tL ,erawlal Stun
V S� I y SCA4 ' 1.540 Linear Feet Y
j \+OF1,
llnftportaiit'Intermltt�t'
1�1 IL
•
150 300 N
0
0 50 100
r � �, � :��� .c:14 J �_"`- •\� _ .. Meters
p

Figure 3: Location of groundwater monitoring wells for the 2008 hydrogeologic investigation.
1t1�11l,fli�li / JENr'oJAoJF
ox
1\Im11\�`1
\ 1\ \lyllllll
�1'k\4
111\\
}111 ! \ '11111111111111\ 1I 11\ /a
`/
I44 4141 \� ) \\ \ ` / ,/I //
} /�ll`1111�11\1` ) 11 `� / I�i 1/j /�/�
\ `1 � ti � it 1 \\ ti. / / �l / —'J � //•/// � ��
`, 1\\\I�\ ) ,/ 11I1111}1 1111// / I V I ry•'�� l
\ r11�4/
I IN-1�1�11111\�\
1�„T \ w:e rroua e
2149.7
2524
1 \ a 1�111I( 1 1 I \\\\�` J2 .s �,,4�
1 \° \ ill li 4• � \ \\�l��1\\\ (,,, i ll/ �U-a r Z.,�——�i'�' \��\
sou a sgo Ogg IBM ago
scA� I INCH-20o FEET
CHARAH ASHEVILLE AIRPORT
CCNTOUR INTERVAL 2 FEET/4 FEET Asheville,NC
UMMI) Figure 1
MW2$ him mO%nL
Site Layout Map
u®er PlsoTocaw�erpc rnrcos usr+g vno�ww4Y g�Yzg aaAueu 27,20M
AM;
aarm caumni t�.T+atYs eY sx,ew.tu.ouan'r>g.rs
NFL A BA�� CCCYgDNS�WY I�a7 YEAR NA'eCNu 1uPUA'ACAurMY�St�M9A�5 7aA�C+J�D'B Irm MUM
AEML SURKY t!YZK=COMM Ng SUf Silar Services Inc.

Figure 4: Aerial view showing cross section location (purple), station section lines (blue)from
the as-built plans [Vaughn Engineering, 2010], and all piezometers and monitoring well
locations. 2015 ortho-imagery map base. Prepared by NC Geologic Survey.
�Imax �' �. z •�� \.. ♦ M
. x
SPT-4
PT2
I� !V!, s
t
'. - K, �_ 3''""•• �. �` _may a r
At
KP
.Ft
y ,
rr`t ' 0 150 300 N
Feet
0 50 100 '
}t' Meters
_ �_ 1 , .

1
Figure 5: Cross-section line NS1 to NS1'. Prepared by NC Geologic Survey.
Water Table Elevation Ground Surface Elevation Well Depth Elevations NOTES
Well ID Date Feet above mean sea Feet above mean sea 1. Ground profile constructed from:
Feet above mean sea level level level McKim&Creed topographic survey of Fill Area on Asheville,Airport,Oct.4,2017;
MW-1 3/5/2008 2088.3 2096.5 2073.5 Charah"As Built"Surface Development as of Dec.21,2009(Vaughn Engineering).
MW-4 3/5/2008 2112.7 2141.5 2100.5
2.HA-2/PZ-5 projected onto the cross section along topographic contour;
PZ 1 11/22/2017 2113.2 2140.0 2106.04 all other wells(SPT/PZ,MW)and surface water sampling sites(SW)projected onto
PZ2 11/2212017 2113.5 2144.9 2094.81 the cross section along lines perpendicular to the cross section.
PZ-3 11/22/2017 2115.3 2139.8 2103.82
PZ-4 1 11/22/2017 2124.2 2145.3 2113.28 3. GCL;(geosynthetic clay liner)elevations:
PZ-5 11/22/2017 2113.4 2116.3 2109.83 As shown on borehole logs for SPT-2/PZ-2 and SPT-3/PZ-3(Geosyntec, Dec.29,2017).
Charah"As Built"Surface Development as of Dec.21,2009(Vaughn Engineering),
PZ-6 11/22/2017 2114.9 2119.3 2109.0'7 cross sections referenced by station locations.
SL GCL=GCL elevation where NS1-NS1'-NS1"and "As Built"cross section lines intersect.
MW1A-Al 11/1/2017 2093.3 2097.7 2077.68 tow GCL=Lowest GCL elevation on respective Charah"As Built"section lines.
MW2A-Al 11/1/2017 2102.0 2099.2 2084.15
MW4A-AI 11/1/2017 2131.4 2151.7 2106.72
MW5-AI 11/1/2017 2114.7 2150.8 2093.73
MW-1,MW-6:closed monitoring wells. (SPT)PZ-1-PZ-4, (HA)PZ5-6: Geosyntec,2017 monitoring wells. DRAFT
MW1A-Al,MW2A-Al,MW4A-AI,MW5-Al:active compliance monitoring wells. MW-I and MW-4 are dosed.
I V
NS1 NS1'
Elevation SPT-3/PZ-3 SPT-2/PZ-2
Feet AS GW 2115.3 GCL 21139 17+00
GCL 2102.2 16+00
13+00 14+00 15+00 SL GCL 2118 SL GCL 2118
2180 HA-2/PZ-5 12+00 INC-1 SLGCL 2112 SL GCL 2114 LowGGCL 21 6 CL 2116 Low GCL 2108 Low GCL 2111 21l 0
GCL 2107A Low GCL 2105
2175 MW2A-AI 6W2713.4 SLGCL2106 scarp .Low GCL2104 21175
2150 GW 2102.0 Low GCL 2103
2150
GW 2088.3
2135 scarp 2135
SW8-AI S 7-Al interval hydraulic gradient 11/2017 1
2120 Wet'CCR at 2117
----------- --
-------- _ 2120
---------- _.............._.hydraulicgradientll/2017"-.........�.. �
ztos --------- - -
- --------- Ydraullcgradient03/2008 ---------------------- ----------------___-- 2t15
2090 --- ----------_-- 2090
partially weathered rock at 2098.8?
2060 2060
2030 2030
2000 2000
60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 720 780 840 900 960

Figure 6: Cross-section line NS1'to NS1". Prepared by NC Geologic Survey.
Water Table Elevation Ground Surface Elevation Well Depth Elevations NOTES
Well ID Date Feet above mean sea Feet above mean sea 1. Ground profile constructed from:
Feet above mean sea level level level McKim&Creed topographic survey of Fill Area on Asheville Airport,Oct.4,2017;
MW-1 3/5/2008 2088.3 2096.5 2073.5 Charah"As Built"Surface Development as of Dec.21,2009(Vaughn Engineering).
MW-4 3/5/2008 2112.7 2141.5 2100.5
2.HA-2/PZ-5 projected onto the cross section along topographic contour;
PZ-1 11/22/2017 2113.2 2140.0 2106.04 all other wells(SPT/PZ,MW)and surface water sampling sites(SW) projected onto
PZ 2 11/22/2017 2113.5 2144.9 2094.87 the cross section along lines perpendicular to the cross section.
PZ-3 11/22/2017 2115.3 2139.8 2103.82
PZ-4 11/22/2017 2124.2 2145.3 2113.28 3. GCL(geosynthetic clay liner)elevations:
PZ 5 11/22/2017 2113.4 2116.3 2109.83 As shown on borehole logs for SPT-2/PZ-2 and SPT-3/PZ-3(Geosyntec, Dec.29,2017).
PZ-6 11/22/2017 2114.9 2119.1 2109.07 Charah"As Built"Surface Development as of Dec.21,2009(Vaughn Engineering),
cross sections referenced by station'locations.
SL GCL=GCL elevation where NS1-NS1'-NS1"and "As Built"cross section lines intersect.
MW1A-AI 11/1/2017 2093.3 2097.7 2077.68 Low GCL=Lowest GCL elevation on respective Charah"As Built"section lines.
MW2A Al 11/1/2017 2102.0 2099.2 2084.15
MW4A-A1 11/1/2017 2131.4 2151.7 2106.72
MWS Al 11/1/2017 2114.7 2150.8 2093.78
MW 1,MW-5:closed monitoring wells. (SPT)PZ-1-PZ-4, (HA)PZ5-6: Geosyntec,2017 monitoring wells. DRAFT
MW1A-A1,MMA-Al,MW4A-A1,MW5-Al:active compliance monitoring wells. MW 1 and MW-4 are closed.
�- N
NS1' NS1"
MW-4 MW4A-A1 Elevation
18+00 19+00 z0+00 21+00 GW 2112.7 GW 2131.4 Feet ASL
SL GCL 2119 SL GCL 2125
21I80 Low GCL 2113 Low GCL 2116 SL GCL 2128 Low GCL 21 8 SL GCL 2130 21+50 2180
Low GCL 2122 CL RCP GCL 2137
2175 2175
I
2150 2150
I
2135 - 213S
hydraulic radientll/2017_----------------------------- 2120
2120 _ - -
h draulic radlent 03/2008
-----------------
2105
2090 2090
2060 2060
2030 2030
2000 2000
1020 1080 1140 1200 1260 1320 1380 1440 1500 1560 1620 1680 1740

Figure 7: Photo of an overlapped GCL panel at the west cell on June 29, 2009.
None
- / - ---
4

Figure 8: Shaded relief map for the immediate project area. Color-coded by elevation; topographic contours (40 ft.
contour intervals) derived from Lidar digital elevation model. Topographic data pre-dates construction of the CCP fill.
�'� a�„.k. ,u, ; `,i �� ter. .i> 9�,�§ y 1 �,».• '4 f •,.� ` /,::�
'.i
l
�<
ev -
_
id
' i•� If �� � � d .i � � ' � �1" !�rip. ; tlV.
,
1 / _
,
rea I S rt t al Fill Project.
:
:
41�. y ^I� �. sae ��*'. ~ L/�« _ � i •F. ,"p y K f "�
A
r` I
tj« Pt• ' 0 1,000 z000 Np r
r
�f Feel ,n\ wf
I� ` 1 �• _ Meters/

Figure 9: A pre-construction potentiometric surface map produced by Silar Services Inc.
213L7
0 2T Z,JJ.
_ o ryo
I
2300
0
0
1
o�
1]IIB.V
Ln
O �
16.T
6 °
q0
0
RI
0
40
214T ],
0
° O T2
N
O 11^0�
0 2153 y
O "' ENSE FOUA E 1
15Y.
21!].T
T114 •
Q O
O %
N 21615• MW Aq
114,A ]I44.8
12.71
��..
2140
O
' 6.T RfJ5.1
o
.]19J.T
21 2150.
�1 w,
O Q W
w°
200 0 200 00 00
5 r 1 INCH = 2 O FEET vs
° TOU INTERVAL; 2 T/4 FEET r
w
LECERo
MW_2® NO6TO4NO WuL CHARAH ASHEVILLE AIRPORT
®O DIRECOON OF GROUNDWATER Asheville,NC
2102 POTENTIONETRRC SURFACE ELEVAUON(FT.NSQ Figure 4
GROUNDWATER NFASURFNENT 3/5/2008 Potentiometrlc Surface
PREPARED BY PHOTOCRARNETRIC METHODS USLNO AEIMAL PHOTOGRAPHY DATED NOYE1®FR 27.2006
x IX1�NNN V�ERIIC7d.BWNY METHOD!
TROL LIC,BA��DLQ�`1.A.CARDIJNA STATE PLANE.]UD e�/2001 AND NAw aS March 5,2008
ALL AREAS OF DASHED CONTOURS MAY NOT MEET NATIONAL NAP ACOURACY STANDARDS AND SHOULD fg FIELD YERPIED
AFRW.SURVEY BY SANBOTK LLC CHARLOTTE,NC
sS . Silar Services Inc®

Wetland Complex
Hidden Creek i I
o East Basin
Central Basin Outlet
Centr O
RCP Discharge
ard
i ♦ �a`�ure V0
5``a`r� e tore�r
al .,
Seep S\ope
West Basin
East Cell
'I
Seepage from
RCP Corridor
West Cell
i

Figure 11: SynTerra site map showing the location of surface water sites sampled on November 1, 2017 and November 29, 2017.
41V
i ilk,=��"�t.�a� r �' � ;v�""r`q`J t.' d tyF.� 11•r ;��...
�' 1
t
S5 {
Y�, 5 („ s ,r�F�? y• 1 � '`P7�'i.�,� r�i� "'k.�.;{:, e� � r, ♦. CULVERT - i 1l�.}� � `k.,�:��• V
•s
z
.� �`.� { -r.�. � ���{ ; ,.. St..:.ear *.,- -•. ;;. �1 - af� .z�1i ��' o »Y'�
r
�r•;��;J i C �.. :i;,.
n
f
r
e. �.., s ape d+r.. ,�& _ • °.. �, h....�hIP' ro -r ¢¢ � 5 �f yy.�+.,�T�,�,:
i+ -[]' l 1� b ,`Y' ') 'L� yyej,.' i k r k �•. ,�� '1/M� v�` +' 4.
L S
M
EXISTING WETLANDS a:
-
YN1)AREA(S � +... ♦' m�L
a
q L t�
�• r
ET AR YN
-.. .. k� t_ _'_: �_. , P. -,•. .r q_ ,.. Y s.' �r' =.-J7 _•�`. /� ,ai��..�� rY'7 rF._ a� t• 4:h.. � ��+j �"�`, 5�
-7 � MW1A-A1
OF
,t J •a .SW1A1 + t o- r, SW1'1-A1
` r SW4
,. 6 Al
'! 4 CONRETEHEADWALL.F,1} Ft .i:'; ;s.. =.n ✓`r ! t •.r
SW-4
!i1
l�t���j~-,. '�. A -. .m,,.,�gti � #'� ° z�^R ��' �'i• l�, .,,�� I�' �A I'�d � ' j � '� �,�;`y� ' � ��.
,
w ,.,, ytf{"t � r �(' .,•y\�� �. f r 'a��+. )-:'d.]t�l, .SW8�1. �{ r �L�t '�
�. r. �r '� \a�., 0 .✓ 1.1 4 u-`li/ s jL €r•;:tq. �'J-� �5�. 1�J
r � ���+,gr �# l 'y G _ �•Cw. ty to/.ra a �',�' Fr' ',�i. �� �.:* S� - �.. �1a i� �-f`.
;� .1>; 'ix ••r�'_ a� s '� �5�;,:E;•r" .,,.�:' .•"'i ,Jfs, .I r'.I�t I.[ WETAREA(SYN3) t' ar s '�9'•
�..a`, �\
•'; '`u �LFy'} � '`�.� at}�=7 gk/„jt},�'*,' Sr`c:/ - {� �� tr vs ``�` ' K `s,��5
L i :q jTl "S 'h�lii ty+[. 1 �� �41 4 L.�• }gl �...
,,lJ�� '� S''"',t' l���� I Il�y� `].C� 4'� ,�._.,/ �7-°,r1�`�z e�{$';�;1 �C ` x,,l• `z''y�,,.,`i4;.
AX
\
I`' l�5� • `l f. }`� s,.,; - 1":r.JF(4I/
k } FENCE L5
LOCKED GATE i ��. .-,` 1•` r,±
LEGENDk
1
© SW-1AT SURFACE WATER COLLECTED 11-012017
A SW=5-•A1 SURFACE WATER COLLECTED 11-012017 AND 1129-2017
n*t3 lY
E) S1N10-AT SURFACE WATER COLLECTED 11 29 2017 e ? 5 = > s` rh i r ,
MW2A-A1 REVIEW BOUNDARY MONITORING WELL ,
——————COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCT LIMITS
®REVIEW BOUNDARY GRAPHIC SCALE
COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY _ x l 1 so 0 60 Soo FIGURE 1
----PROPERTY LINE(APPRO)OMATE) NFEEr SITE LAYOUT MAP
{' ;. 14EENVIL STREET, 220
LIN DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS
SAMPLE CO ECrE ION WVEMBER 10N: GREENNLLE.SOUiHCAROUNA29601 STRUCTURAL FILL-AREA 1
SAMPLES COLLECTED ON NOVEMBER],2017 BYBYNTERRAANDNCDEQ. F �•a, PHONE [phone]
SAMPLES COLLECTEDONNOVEMBER29,20178YSYNTERRA. "''Y'''z'RterraOorP-00f" ASHEVILLE REGIONAL AIRPORT
SOURCE: `"�. WnTerja DRAWNBMJOHNCHWRJN DA7Ef2/]5/2D17 ARDEN,NORTH CAROLINA
hW/dMARCH 6.2015 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OBTAINED FROM NO ONE MAP GEOSPATM PORTAL AT F r PROIECTMANAG3b BRMW7LRER
WELLLa TION,OALCOMBUSTIONPRODUCTTS LUAFM REVIEWS - `L7' LAYMPFIG 1(SBELAYOUT MAP)
WELL LOCATIONS,TLED.G oUDWATERODIR.'MAPSTRUCTURALF BOUNDARY 12-1&2LUWCE BOUNDARYTANEN FROM! F4 �I.
SSME DAAWING TITLED'GROUNDWATER FLOW MAP STRUCRIRIILF0.L'.DATED I2-162D30. �E'_':.' II.. 1� Wi1/mv uove� v.+nura wa 1025\a1n5N1vnrE vuN .rownmi i\wrDwEAvnwuE auvDar SrRuetUua.Nu.a+Fwte+

I
/v
Figure 12: Landslide events and rainfall recurring weather patterns for western North Carolina. Prepared by NC Geologic Survey.
Average Frequency
Landslide Events and Rainfall 1876-2017 141 vears
Recurring Weather Patterns 6 events: 100s of landslides
Avg. Frequency = 23.5 r
Y
2 events: 1000s of landslides
Avg. Fre uenc = 70.5 r
- .- m g q Y Y
Landslide ���
Numbers � � � � ��•�� � 4
5,6fo0 ^"0 10 8 events: 100s-1000s of landslides
103 ? "' 103 Avg. Frequency = 17.5 yr
500 ? Aoo
102 ? 102
5101— 101 30 total recorded landslide events
s Avg. Frequency = 4.7 yr
% ~q°° 140 10 440 111° "°~° "°~h 1P 1916-2017 101 vears.
Note: All numbers given for landslides are approximate.Queried bars indicate where numbers of landslides were not-given in reports of landslide Incidence.
Rainfall Time
800 —. Back-to-Back Storm Events
mm in
—30 Lake 8-12 days apart 1916, 1940, 2004
Faifuro-Debris Flow
August 13.1916
600 25
3 - Two-Storm Events
20
40o H S �aa� hry"�� Avg. Frequency 33.7 yr
15 S �4�°'`ry
ETD
10----------------------H ----------- _---_------------- --------KO
200 S Approx.24-hr S (GSMNP) s S
5-J
------Tnresho�d--- -------- ----------- --- s -- Ss �0 Rainfall Amounts
-� fS
o >3 inches / 24 hours
%1P ~9�° ~°h° 41P tie 10" le Periods of high antecedent moisture
fro 01 ,pro ~6 ~6 b0 O p'L 14 �'D .�1 90 so e' 9 .�O�'�
,�• "�• ,.�,�•,�• ��•,,�,4, "�, �a•�1 �• h•^h Landslides on some modified slopes
^Jq �a Qua
P, �
Rainfall Event Category Named Storms >5 inches / 24 hours
Maximum 24 hr H Hurricane HA-Hurricane Agnes:June 19-23.1972 TSC-Tropical Storm Cindy:July 6.7,2005 Scattered landslides:
Total TS - Tropical Storm HO-Hurricane Opal:Oct.4.5,1995 TSE- Tropical Storm Ernesto:August 31,2006 c
TO - Tropical Depression HF-Hurricane Frances:Sept.7-8,20D4 TSF-Tropical Storm Fay:August26.29.2008 Modified and Unmodified Slopes
ETD- Extralropical Depression HI -Hurricane Ivan:Sept.16.17,2004
S - Storm
•' Excludes major landslide events on 1-40 not coincident with landslides events elsewhere in western NC >10 inches / 24 hours
Widespread landslides
2 NCGS begins tracking landslide events in western NC. Modified and Unmodified Slopes

-
` .. A`pprozimafe,
. =dry Y area Wslurp'p';�
,,. rA rozimate ex"ted"t.
vie
x PP h� + Approximate, Most area-no "xf. '
!of,,i`iprap;�buttre's`s, �� \location bflctacki, -- -•
a �.• o flow observedi
r •� a •a.�'� ° SUN2
ee
, not 0 1 ;` n3Se:'�• \1, ,. T-J2, \ r:�
_ •'d •t 2 1. �; `„ ,._.+='''+.. - n?. y,•i :✓ _ 4v"-r3
L
` ♦ n •C �r `wl•,r ,• k r , . _ ``Z�,��- j •. • •'{ ,
' QJam-rOXlnate weNareaA zD22 Jsfifst nb__ecni215 Esc a JS .� •�
, .
�}
<s
��.
not surveyed) \® ti; tiB2U`✓ 1B3 j,
4 ,( \' - ..w-__I A2 t C3 iFa: U
e # L
21
'1
�-
_ J7
r Y{ .
tca. F5, H6J. 16
f — �1_ O D6 �iai Ffi �H7 Y Y �� - r ' F•.
,.:5 • # r� .��-. BS zn 4 D6 E7 _'sds ® o lsY`r y ,♦ _ e
-G*o.undwaterseep _ As ©�� cs• uG6 L718J 4�
- - r
` gf. _ �? !� '• R fN t•N2 N1 # -d •B8
L1 K1 ,• ,; A8 ,; ' ., ,�rrr .' �$ .3 r, ..� • .
I
•+' f r* ` ; a" \ Q - N6 'llJs14._.. In1 _. " «..° • - ,s` *•' sy.. t,`.. "-�' \'�2 " T,'►.n
i w �'• n fN7 t� 142 L2 K2 ..
�j
NB
6 i y � * • F
w
.., •,,
- . • - - ca-2 Ms • 'Ls Ks " �. +`, , \r ort securit fenc � `, � ` .
I-
` pa6 O 6 Q6 fr- ;* }� ,' R 60' diameter RCP+: t with concrete footer e j f i` 4�1
D lK6
* Slough.
"a
M f 7 -' 7 r i���;^ .4"• • • • r ,F t y,° ` _ 1 p 1 ,y5» !d � a �i
Slope0 Control Point
-. October 1 � +!1 t f,. - / '�d;r yam, -t+�S. a # '� {� t + ,
Slope •• • ._ 1 'F- aG
QQ
4 - g.'\ fiy4
Temporary Stabilization - ^ y, '1� t f, •� 4 •r .1'11E 1'� i +Q F F�'e♦ - '•S $i 4�
m
'"E✓
,t }F •* > i
` . -. i ; +' ',.a # ie . _hDQ,I'Ks ! e'•1F # + jy.
F , •
• r •
r 150 Feet
Area 1 Stormwater Network
75
1.Service Layer Credits: Source:Esrl,DlgitalGlobe.GeoEye.
..,+" v'
-Earthst . • • d rah N / e ri r{" 1f - n s: f * L •• MONITORING
SlopeAeroG
,IGN,and the GIS User Community.
2. pins on the eastern .._and riprap baseline surveyc,
. . . • .. 1 .. . on
�g n atAsheville
performed
the western slope baseline survey performed by McKim&Creed on Asheville,North Carolina
.r • 1
on 29 November _ - - - - ��+..
Investigation y r.: "` "' y x;1, , s • _y"iy �',. ey� • ► 4�DUKE
17.
-borings were terminated early due to difficult or unexpected ground q onsultants
a
cond
LL
. • Fly, • . "�1 r S • \, kP -
F M i
plez

Q
a
f s
s
-a
. , ' _. , ,, • -- �. .,fah - .:
e o-
vfjl
40
t
} � '�- �� • Lateral movement
x MW 2A ,j N a. �'i
MW 1A x • Magnitude: 0.2 ft
g } a k w n
e ��: -, • ° Q .$�k:. �aie�al,movernenY', � `� �t. - r � *�
. F
� � • • rrelative��tbkbaseline?_T �2
of rip aq buttress #rr ° i -.-_� •'{}j 3
Aproxl�e extent �� � * e . ��� 11, � ,D�~`e"ction_,N J
t s
P
to
. � a mtude 0.2 ft ,
T ,
o -., G.
jy
\ F1 �jar
w _ • C' •-
I i' w rt '-"r� '_ r, E'I �,���f J�H 3 '� - yr. '�a I
a b �' Lz �' D7 o F2 //.� G3� 'o+-� [:�. p1 �
�3 fl .
_
wk
• Al \ rf//��� t. (14' o
t�42 EJ • ,1—J 15 :
C831i G �G5 ( p s
Y
°F5 H6,. r..; a ' ' : MI6 ? i
: ,
C. E5 G6_ ° t= °� y
60 diameter RCP a fi r�g:;� t CRT
« ., �y :}
rgt A4 ,: .v D5 _ F6J t + �" +C
C5 4E6� r G7 3. 0 7 117� y�$ ,.
• e is T
65. F7. ° #
g A5 C6 �%U_ E7 Ib 'al w ♦ h kIt 11
.
C.' �H l
C7 ' FS �� � (ate�al�inovement 0NL'Legend
(� °
,relative to baseline s =
Lateral movement � �
A7 °B7 a • « M�gritude 0.1 ft y �"
relative to baseline ca „ Direction SW'
MonitoringL -' '
� Magnitude: "" `"`� �, e �4�
Slope •- - Direction: SE . ,AB °B6 Lateral movement Sulisrd n e r attve to
relative to baseline bi as_eline:0.1
w £
Temporary . a "y a (Mag tude: 0.1�ftj
Stormwater Network Direction SW « j
'SLOPE
• MOVEMENTS
rt °<
EAST FILL
Subsidence 5ela`t . _ '�
1.Service Layer Credits: Source:Esirl,• • baseline: 0.1>� � �.
. . •• Lateral movement t! $ t
Asheville Regional Airport
* ' Y:
AeroGRID,IGN,and the GIS User Community. * relative to baseline 'l = Asheville,North Carolina
2. Monitoring well locations obtained from"Area 1 Water Location • Subsidence rela' a to Magnitude: 0.1 ft 3 `
Summary and B29 December •�ring Logs"letter prepared by Charah,Inc.dated baseline:�09. .2 ft ,�# Direction: NW ° ,., ; cF ¢ . -
4.Survey tolerance Is�3. Slope pins surveyed•y McKim&Creed on.12 December 2017.Ill. Slope pins that moved more than theconsultants
survey tolerance are labeled with magnitude and direction of
y -
#

Figure 15: Geosyntec graph of estimated drained friction angle versus elevation.
2150
i
O Soil Cap
O CCR
® Re3idutun
t3 CCP12cduun:?ransitim 01 p
----Self Cup-seleeted 1
----CCP--Selecwd 1 ° I
ra'=30
Rnidumn-Sdrted
1
1
1
1
f � i V=34-
' 1
it k
1
O 1
1
1 to {
O 11
11
O 110
II +
1 t f
G 7
4 �
_090 {
0 10 '_0 30 40 50 60
Efrectiw FtictiouAwde.V(=)
Figure 3. Estiim atetl Dd rained Filction Angle vea•sus Elevation,
Notes)
[11 NAVD88: North American Vertical Datum of 1988.
[2] Estimation of'drained friction angle by Hatanaka&Uchida[19961 is typically applied to sandy soils. The
applicability of SPT based relationship's for CCR is limited- However-the effective friction angle for CCR
based on the SPT results was included for.completeness and to•provide an.indication of,the range A
possible effective friction angles_

- •, • • •• • 1- •- 1
0.
wu
_ sue, u �r � �.,,✓b5^}:�T�''i,�"..1�y� r+��''�,'� . `�''r .. '� -��h f� �� ���5,�# '+r' .,�C�,��
,' •. t r.* +,,... r r 't +14 + +k 1 d a. 'U «r°` 4 '•^ * .s .e, xJ
K .ag 1` +,.,,'�' 9T' '^i a ,ar. ✓'. .�a�f.,Xa,q� r -
� ..`W+.,W 1 fir,.✓a ...`4 -r' � - ';ry±'� '1. r`a a, '. °9+uf
;q4i�
e z :p.,
A; .s;+ ,, fd:v'✓ _ p +'k"`>nc Y w. ".a�'e y.""T 'r'*- _ #r.
.r': • ./ ,� t aq.�� d, .r.�y M�r :,{4 q�t'' n.t-°t"�I-:d a�aNt^-'��0 e�'^%t�^irce, � .'e m x'�` o.���,.� `-J1 `'�"a^;r•�s a
' r 1 � V �4 \a "{i t .Ce.'.. Re:" v.. �y_- i.L,�{r�>.d•
OV
jL
�^ . .'ram„„ } t��_�+.�� ' '"$ •$'kg��� �.- $.:Z•.23+Sf.,;..tT. ��,��+� fi�v��.'�,���
�, �,
'+�-�•;,�`.. -'3' _ - 1+�.L red?e���� ....�� ,�—��'TM.. �-_-� �
��' • .... i•*�q^.tar# ,- - �''-�' .-;?'�c+ _ .fir' _ �` �"��FT°""�" ",,,v..,,.:,,,,.�"''��
.M 'imp r +xv>-+L,,,. w..,�YY \d �•"' `'�`7""y,'�"' r 3 � <: �'_'� v.'hT��1T A.'�
. y _
,..e . �..�rr.- ',"`'1 ;.ew, r-�-">,a2 •-i 4,, �.a.«rT^�k }• �.,�. ti.,�t ,,�"f ;, ` ,,t '"
wit
s ,u'. �x t 1 v ,-K5y3 r_:r ;.,<..- a >�Y ,;..�. at =9�v4h�.ae�.a.c'kA.,.�..�_�, ...•,,.,- :t ` '�eellF r}5��.� �.
y "+$'i'. ,+ T sac*`.e r^'+�/• ' „r,"r.4.i I 1 ,1.e.,a'✓y4 k'~ N p�;• '++' wt t ?y,�,,4'g1x t'�8,�.� „ ,{`i +_ .:N, nr
�� �' -t �' •v 4.+°`}j 17, f" Y- d.s..q,y�,..;s .L.nt'rC4 �,NPos..I._,�.✓' yP 1 1`.*1i"xrt`{y 7�. � ;^`' °i wr y'"d`a.
n '� /��� iS�:�dF,. �. Nr�, ✓ �;;:{„1 �.i,.J. r' ,'�na �t,���,�t,.�'•` �o,J r�'>�r. � '\J�r i�
+' ,;tf.• ..i+'- y !.?,j`-�iy�t �7^"- r:< y�"Zc" 'i � a3,'S«� t .: y`'� tt. �'
;,xr ^• � d,�1. ,. ,.'• -,.% l j,,rr�r L/x � �`� t,r-� /, v�`s � s t� rc -� +4� - r�ti
«r^ � lr' r ;4 / F�/ I ' -.�.�ti •t- ,(r',tF x'c l.« - ���+.•.�s l 1. ` iy:�5 � f:� � .r✓. ! i.�e+
rt
r
^y c
t iIr\ {�^ � ./� r'/ ,, r. p y e h d�*.(t:. t �qa:•� u �, ��L t x ,•,,.D;e ;:� � :I"
a',4e j; \.-,r i� �`;/ '`�°�,,yt \� �1' a""�r��� '•-; �/ i '•' `1f..,-��1n{ ���=:1"� 't`, t f-r` ,� ��"" \�v 0,? � µS-'tom
• / .. • ++-��,Y\d �`� .��1�- -�,��!�L:/V:', y3 J�_`�' e,d�CSf-���L,1" ..Y,. '/\, ,f. '�llY�`*Gam^'.\ ._ki�s_a4�t�./-.•l�tia'�i.t- ...k_<�... _

Table 1: Buncombe County drought status index for the period April 2007—April 2009.
Information collected from North Carolina Drought Advisory website www.ncdrought.org.
Date Buncombe County Drought Status Index
3-Apr-07 Moderate
1-May-07 Severe
5-Jun-07 Severe
3-Jul-07 Severe
7-Aug-07 Severe
7-Sep-07 Extreme
2-Oct-07 Exceptional
6-Nov-07 Exceptional
7-Dec-07 Exceptional
1-Jan-08 Exceptional
5-Feb-08 Exceptional
4-Mar-08 Extreme
1-Apr-08 Severe
6-May-08 Severe
3-Jun-08 Extreme
1-Jul-08 Exceptional
5-Aug-08 Exceptional
2-Sep-08 Extreme
7-Oct-08 Extreme
4-Nov-08 Extreme
2-Dec-08 Exceptional
6-Jan-09 Severe
3-Feb-09 Severe
3-Mar-09 Severe
7-Apr-09 Moderate

r� Js
I\ r
Table 2: Asheville Regional Airport (KAVL) annual rainfall for the period 1983 -2016.
Information was collected from the Greenville-Spartanburg, SC National Weather Service
Forecast Office Website w2.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=gsp.
Year Annual Rainfall (Inches) Rank
2016 33.40 2
2015 54.35 27
2014 46.91 18
2013 75.22 34
2012 44.66 15
2011 46.04 17
2010 44.26 13
2009 62.13 33
2006 48.29 22
2005 47.26 20
2004 52.36 24
2003 59.46 31
2002 44.47 14
2001 34.49 4
2000 35.59 6
1999 39.85 10
1998 48.02 21
1997 49.38 23
1996 47.16 19
1995 55.39 28
1994 57.46 30
1993 37.97 9
1992 54.04 26
1991 43.66 12
1990 55.87 29
1989 60.63 32
1988 26.58 1
1987 43.21 11
1986 34.57 5
1985 35.94 8
1984 45.71 16
1983 52.92 25

Table 3: Water table elevations for monitoring wells associated with the 2008 hydrogeologic investigation.
NA-Eater Level umma -y
Charah Asheville Regional Airport.
Fletcher. North Carolinn
NIT.-tter Level Data
well
TIC raamclfaaerouaicl €-�utenanclte ° rraavu ►�.aa
NV ell ID. Il��eipt ter
(MSL) Llev.aation (A L) Elevation Elevation Elevation
II L llLI IL.
MW-2 25 2,117.70 —2,115.5 2,105.81 2,102.85 2,103-26
:L�4M'-4 41 2,143.73 - 2z,141_5 ,11 .71' 2,111.98 2,111-61
NoteS. i
fags -Belox Ground Surface
TOC -Top of WeU,Casmg
E1ewitio ns in feet;abl ove me2n sear legs

Table 4:Area 1 phreatic surface and piezometric surface elevations at piezometers PZ-1 through PZ-6.
Asheville Airport Area 1 CCP Structural Fill Piezometer Data
PZ-1 PZ-2 PZ-3 PZ-4 PZ-5 PZ-6
Piezometer ID Northing Easting Northing Easting Northing Easting Northing Easting Northing Northing
636217.483 944940.048 636169.708 945231.91 636383.424 945306.567 636457.27 945518.289 636475.181 636567.122
Depth of Well,ft(below ground surface,bgs) 34.00 50.00 36.00 32.00 6.50 10.00
Depth of Well Elevation (ft AMSL*) 2106.04 2094.87 2103.82 2113.28 2109.83 2109.07
GCL Elevation(ft AMSL*) 2103.00 2111:87 2102.32 2112.28
Top of Casing Elevation (ft AMSL*) 2142.72 2147.89 2142.78 2148.52 2119.60 2121.47
Ground Elevation (ft AMSL*) 2140.04 2144.87 2139.82 2145.28 2116.33 2119.07
Top of Casing Height(ft) 2.68 3.02 2.96 3.24 3.27 2.40
Location Directly above GCL 7 ft to 17 ft below GCL Directly above GCL Directly above GCL Directly above GCL Directly above GCL
Water Water Water
Distance Water Distance Water Water Distance Water Distance Water Distance Water Distance Water
Date to Water Elevation Depth to Water Elevation Depth above to Water Elevation Depth to Water Elevation Depth- toWater Elevation to Water Elevation
(ft) ft ASL above GCL above GCL above GCL
(ft) (ft) ft ASL GCL(ft) (ft) ft ASL (ft) (ft) ft ASL (ft) (ft) ft ASL (ft) - ft ASL
11/20/2017 29.70 2113.03 10.03 35.60 2112.29 0.42 27.28 2115.50 13.18 24.59 2123.93 11.65 6.30 2113.30 6.07 2115.40
11/20/2017 29-.63 2113.10 10.10 34.69 2113.20 '1.33 28.43 2114.35 12.03 24:69 2123.83 '11.55; 6.20 2113.40 6.79 2114.68
11/22/2017 29.52 2113.20 10.20 34.40 2113.49 1.62 27.44 2115.34 13.02 24.34 2124.18 11.90 6.23 2113.37 6.54 2114.93
11/29/2017 29.64 2113.08 10.08 34.62 2113.27 1.40 26.68, 2116.10 13.78 24.58 2123.94 11.66, 6.70 2112.90 7.06 2114.41
12/12/2017 29.49 2113.23 10.23 34.37 2113.52 1.65 27.60 2115.18 12.86 24.31 2124.21 11.93 5.59 2114.01 6.52 2114.95
12/27/2017 .2935 2112.97 9.97 34.7.1 2113.18 1.31 24.73- 2123.79 11.51 6.18 2113.42 5.82 2115.65
1/22/2018 29.58 2113.14 10.14 34.48 2113.41 1.54 24.31 2124.21 11.93 5.96 2113.64 5.75 2115.72
2/15/2018 29.18 2113.54 10.54. 33.89 2114.00 2.13 26.65 2116.13 11 .13.81 23.55 2124.97 12.69 4.74 2114;86 4.42 2117.05

Table 5: Water table elevations associated with the CCP fill compliance groundwater monitoring wells.
Well Relative Measuring Point Elevation Ground Surface Elevation Depth to Water(Top of Casing) Water Table Elevation
Monitoring well Date Depth
Feet Feet ASL Feet ASL Feet
11/30/2009 7.99 2092.41
3/9/2010 5.73 2094.67
11/19/2010 8.59 2091.81
4/11/2011 8.00 2092.40
11/9/2011 7.90 2092.50
4/11/2012 7.46 2092.94
11/13/2012 7.60 2092.80
4/1/2013 7.10 2093.30
MW1A 11/4/2013 20 2100.4 2097.68 7.15 2093.25
4/9/2014 6.92 2093.48
11/5/2014 7.37 2093.03
4/6/2015 7.29 2093.11
11/5/2015 7.20 2093.20
4/11/2016 7.01 2093.39
11/2/2016 7.60 2092.80
4/21/2017 7.60 2092.80
11/1/2017 7.08 2093.32
11/30/2009 1.42 2101.29
3/9/2010 1.13 2101.58
11/19/2010 2.10 2100.61
4/11/2011 1.58 2101.13
11/9/2011 1.52 2101.19
4/11/2012 1.02 2101.69
11/13/2012 1.28 2101.43
4/1/2013 0.72 2101.99
MW2A 11/4/2013 15 2102.71 2099.15 0.88 2101.83
4/9/2014 0.51 2102.20
11/5/2014 0.82 2101.89
4/6/2015 0.69 2102.02
11/5/2015 0.82 2101.89
4/11/2016
11/2/2016 1.23 2101.48
4/21/2017 0.88 2101.83
11/1/2017 0.70 2102.01

Table 6: Select analytical results for Area 1 surface water and groundwater monitoring on November 1, 2017. Select surface water standards are listed at the bottom of the spreadsheet.
Ln
� rn CL
[D
Or+
tD v f v rp rrCD fD i �C/ fD <
r+ (D 0- 1< � En rD Q- C !D
-T
Units S.U. umhos/cm mg/I
Surface Water Monitoring Results
11/1/17 DUKE OF 28.8 <0.001 0.040 <0.05 7.43 0.0021 1.19 2.48 0.406 <0.001 0.069 1.5 29.0
SW1-Al
11/1/17 DUKE F 5.6 99 1.38 <0.001 0.043 <0.05 0.0021 1.20 0.466 <0.001 0.075
11/1/17 DWR U F 28.0 <0.002 0.041 8.20 <0.05 1.30 2.60 0.450 <0.002 0.063
11/1/17 DWR F <0.002 0.039 <0.05 8.10 <0.05 1.10 2.60 0.440 <0.002 0.062 2.2
11/1/17 DUKE OF 23.4 <0.001 0.037 <0.05 8.04 -<-0.001 0.29 3.41 0.221 <0.001 0.063' 2.8 34.1
SW3-A1 11/1/17 DUKE F 6.4 98 6.78 - <0.001 0.038 <0.05 <0.001 0.19 0.220 <0.001 0.067
11/1/17 DWR OF 23.0 <0.002 0.036 7.80 <0.05 0.28 3.10 0.220 <0.002 0.058
11/1/17 DWR F <0.002 0.035 <0.05 7.80 <0.05 0.18 3.20 0.210 <0.002 0.056 3.1
11/1/17 DUKE OF 29.3 <0.001 0.019 0.085 7.18 0.0014 2.71 3.93 0.428 <0.001 0.078 7.9 34.1
SW4-A1 11/1/17 DUKE F 6.1 108 3.51 <0.001 0.019 0.093 0.0013 1.75 0.476 <0.001 0.084
11/1/17 DWR OF 33.0 <0.002 0.019 7.90 <0.05 2.60 4.10 0.470 <0.01 0.071
11/1/17 DWR F <0.002 0.018 0.093 7.90 <0.05 1.60 4.10 0.450 <0.01 0.069 8.1
11/1/17 DUKE OF 86.5 <0.001 0.042 0.168 23.5 0.0015 2.21 7.97 1.00 0.0023 0.312 9.9 91.6
SW5-A1
11/1/17 DUKEIF
6.6 217 6.52 <0.001 0.047 0.191 0.0015 2.11 1.07 0.0023 0.331
11/1/17 DWR7.2 534 1.12 81.0 <0.002 0.046 26.00 <0.05 2.40 8.70 1.10 <0.01 0.310
11/1/17 DWR <0.002 0.045 0.180 26.00 <0.05 1.90 8.70 1.10 <0.01 0.300 10.0
11/1/17 DUKE 14.7 0.0026 0.027 <0.05 4.11 <0.001 5.11 1.94 0.188 <0.001 0.036 6.2 18.3
SW6-A1 11/1/17 DUKE6.2 79 2.94 0.0028 0.035 <0.05 0.0013 7.05 0.262 <0.001 0.043
11/1/17 DWR 22.0 0.0027 0.028 4.10 <0.05 4.40 1.90 0.140 <0.01 0.033
11/1/17 DWR 0.0026 0.034 <0.05 4.30 <0.01 6.20 2.10 0.210 <0.01 0.036 5.8
SW7-A1
11/1/17 DUKE 0.0017 0.067 0.351 0.002 0.14 2.08 0.015 1.20
11/1/17 DWR F 290.0 <0.002 0.050 0.340 8.30 <0.05 <0.05 20.0 1.10 0.014 1.10 12.0
11/1/17 DUKE OF 523.0 0.219 0.219 1.29 147.00 0.018 2.16 31.0 9.42 0.15 2.18 32.0 439.0
SW8-A1 11/1/17 DUKE F 6.9 937 0.68 0.217 0.230 1.38 0.018 2.39 9.82 0.15 2.24
11/1/17 DWR U F 490.0 0.210 0.230 150.00 <0.05 23.00 33.0 10.00 0.17 2.20
11/1/17 DWR F 0.200 0.230 1.40 150.00 <0.05 23.00 33.0 10.00 0.16 2.10 34.0
&o,unftater Monitoring;kesulits,
_. . 5..2�0 6 9 c',0.05r . : . , 6.005 0!"'0 0!0 3MW1 A k 5✓6 47 0 00001l P 001 9r1 <1
,1t1� KE .,.. U:F 5:4 48, 0!.63t -12.4= <.©)„O.On1 0.025 <0.©5, 3.33r <.©®Q©i1 0.0,65i 1;51 <0.005 <..0.©05� I 0�®434 <n !
-_�,__-. _. L - - - t ._ - ---�- - - - -. , __ 1
V , v _ -
v ',C'fv v'k ! ri } f ):1_i 1, u ,. 02`6 < I lo. ,;i r .
t- ,0_ 0.05 I 0.23, 0.,03i7,7,0, ©05'F 2:Z
MW_4�A�1k_�.,.:1�/?/,r1.7�_ :��. .,:DUIKE ;_�. ._U,F -�. 5.1 59_-- -- � -0.19_ � 23.1 .: O,.OIDY14.4 _ --= - -
r r r ®UlWE. OF "5a0 2©r 5.42. <., ©�©7©© �91 0:019: . , <;0:05, „pt;..1 r, < < , �1` :Z < e1, F'-; < ? !
^.. � _ , 5 t _ �.� _t ,_ -. _ _ I ,._35- - [._0.00082 - --0 17r9, - �-- 0_0.- �_ 0.052 �-- .O,ObS
Applicable Surface Water Standards,
Arsenic Barium Boron Cobalt Iron Manganese
mg/I mg/I mg/I _ mg/I mg/I mg/I
Human Health 0.01 Water Supply 1.0 Irrigation Supply 0'.75 Aquatic Life(chronic) 0.15 Aquatic Life' 1.0 Water Supply 0.05
Aquatic L'ife,(chroni:c) G.15 Aquatic Life(chronic) 21 Aquatic Life,(chronic)I 0:15 Aquatic Life(acute). 1.51 Fish Cansumpti'on, 0.10
Aquatic Life,(iacute) 0�,34 Aquatic Life(acute} 210 Aquatic,L'ife('acute),,, 1.5 Fish Consumption 0'.004

Laverty, Brett
From: Laverty, Brett
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 4:48 PM
To: 'Toepfer, John R'; 'Michael A. Reisman'
Cc: Pickett, Matt;Nordgren, Scott R.; Hill, Tim S.; Sullivan, Ed M; Czop, Ryan; John Coon
[e-mail]); McNash, James-geosyntec; Lew Bleiweis; Wooten, Rick; Davidson,
Landon ([e-mail]); Risgaard, Jon; Zimmerman, Jay; 'Benzoni, Francisco'
Subject: RE: [External]Asheville Airport Area I Survey Results-April 2018
Attachments: Phreatic and Piezometric Surface Elevation Chart.pdf; Slope Pins East Cell Map April 5
2018.pdf; IMG_0516.JPG
John and Mike,
I've completed a review of the April 2018 piezometer and slope pin monitoring data and would like to-highlight a
number of pertinent observations:
• According to the Geosyntec Engineering report, reported pin displacements between 0.1-ft. and 0.2-ft may fall
within the survey error but displacements above 0.2-ft are a better indication of actual slope pin displacement.
• The April 5, 2018 geopin survey identified vertical displacements along the row 1 transect(see attached slope
pin east cell Map)which is located at the toe of the weeping slough.Vertical displacements ranged from 0.17
feet to 0.24 feet. DWR inspections in March 2018 identified potential movement in the scarp face at the top of
the slough (see attached photo).
• The April 5, 2018 geopin survey identified vertical displacements of 0.24 feet and 0.29 feet at geopins J2 and J3
respectively.
• The row 1 transect and the J transect are associated with portions of the fill slope that have a Factor of Safety
less than 1.
• Geosyntec recommends that the northeast slope of the east cell near transect J be inspected thoroughly for
signs of displacement. In addition,the west cell adjacent to transects M and N should also be inspected for
surface manifestation of displacement and to assess whether computed displacements are the result of routine
maintenance,freeze-thaw cycles,or systematic or intrinsic survey error.
• Changes in the piezometric surface elevations at PZ-2 is similar to the changes/trends in the phreatic surface
elevations at PZ-1, PZ-3, PZ-4, PZ-5,and PZ-6 (see attached phreatic and piezometric elevation chart).
• The piezometric surface elevations at PZ-2 are similar to the phreatic surface elevations at PZ-5 and greater than
phreatic surface elevations at PZ-1.
• The phreatic surface elevation at PZ-4 is significantly higher than the phreatic surface elevations at PZ-1, PZ-3,
PZ-5,and PZ-6.
DWR is requesting Duke Energy and the Asheville Airport provide a response to these observations as they relate to
slope stability and the development of a phreatic surface within the CCP fill.You will also need to provide a timeline to
inspect and report on the stability of the weeping slough area,J-transect, M-transect,and N-transect. Please provide
your response by the close of business on Friday May 4,2018.
Monthly slope pin monitoring, inclinometer monitoring, piezometer monitoring, and site inspections are to continue
until further notice. Please submit a monthly spreadsheet containing the geopin survey data, inclinometer data,and
1

,piezom,etdr monitoring data. From this point forward,the monthly monitoring spreadsheet will need to contain daily
rainfall totals from the Asheville Regional Airport beginning with October 1, 2017.
Please note that DWR will be providing a response to the 90-day report in the coming week.The expectations outlined
in that letter and this email are applicable to both Duke Energy and the Asheville Regional Airport. Please contact me if
you have any additional questions or concerns.
Regards,
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 arncdenr.gov
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778
is 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:Toepfer,John R [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday,April 25, 2018 3:50 PM
To: Laverty, Brett<[e-mail]>
Cc: Pickett, Matt<[e-mail]>; Nordgren,Scott R.<[e-mail]>; Hill,Tim
S. <Tim.Hill @duke-energy.com>; Sullivan, Ed M <[e-mail]>; Czop, Ryan<Ryan.Czop@duke-
energy.com>;John Coon ([e-mail])<[e-mail]>; Michael A. Reisman ([e-mail])
<[e-mail]>; McNash,James-geosyntec<[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Asheville Airport Area I Survey Results-April 2018
CAUtION.,E= erna!em I.Do 9MI. I' uspi ious email s an en to
Brett,
Geosyntec Consultants received on April 13, 2018 the coordinate and elevation data collected on April 5, 2018 by McKim
&Creed for the Asheville Airport Area 1 slope monitoring system (Transects Athrough N) and provided a summary to
Duke Energy on April 16, 2018.The attached should also include the piezometer and inclinometer data.
2

,For Transacts A through J,Geosyntec compared the data against the baseline survey collected 4 October 2017 and
computed the relative movement. For Transects K through N, Geosyntec compared the data against the baseline survey
collected 15 November 2017.
As described previously and provided in the 90-day report,starting with 12 December 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.
Geosyntec's observations are as follows:
• 20 slope pins (A8, B6, B8, C8, E8, F8,J1,J2,J6, M2, M3, M5, and N1 through N8 )were calculated to have
displaced above the survey tolerance (0.1 ft/1.2 in.), in either the lateral direction and/or in elevation relative to
the baseline surveys; none have a total displacement of more than 0.291 ft(3.50 in.) in the lateral direction or
more than 0.245 ft(2.94 in) in elevation.
• Eight slope pins (65, B7, C2, D7, H2,J3,J4, and L4) identified with displacements above the 0.1 ft tolerance on
March 12, 2018,were found with displacements below the 0.1 ft survey tolerance on April 5, 2018.
• Eleven of the 20 slope pins calculated with movement above the 0.1 ft survey tolerance are located within the
west cell and have not previously been identified with movement since the baseline survey. M2,M3, and M5 are
slightly above the 0.1-ft survey tolerance in the lateral direction;while, N1 through N8 were measured with
displacements above the survey tolerances but below 0.2 ft.The relative computed displacement of N1 through
N8 appears to be in the opposite direction of anticipated movement.
Based on this information,the slope does not appear to have significantly displaced since the baseline survey
events. Geosyntec recommends that the northeast slope of the east cell near transect J be inspected thoroughly for
signs of displacement. In addition,the west cell adjacent to transects M and N should also be inspected for surface
manifestation of displacement and to assess whether computed displacements are the result of routine maintenance,
freeze-thaw cycles, or systematic or intrinsic survey error.
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
3

/
"' �/ ' � ' Late�alLrriovement, 5
# I
MW-� .n, relative to)a`sel n� ` r
: �,< ,. 4y .' Mag in Lud_e�•.02� `\ `ar. , I
MW-1A � �D,irection�,N'E5J ! '
s L-i1er"al1in_ovement±
ativto�tiasellne?_ 12
Approximate extent Magnitud'e}0.2 ft
r; -, -0.2U9 ft. • - -0.237 ft.
Of
riprap buttressNit IV
-0.124 ft. jl �� Dir-ection.;�NEi
3 . \ .1 -0.169 ft. H1 ''3� -0.291 ft.
j ► � -0.245 ft. �,, i
�,
.i44
•
e i E} �ja���� u
0110�r
,+" v 0 6
or
4�1♦ � ,,°�,J� D'4, � G5' e-5' � '� e5 ,, ti � ay
F5,' Hs Fs ' '� ft b -0.112 . +1
60" diameter.RCP ('f_ ''' ° .. ( i
A4� . L
:85 ° 5J °~ hE61 iP G71I A `
r,
� K
m
s; C7 1 ` LLa,:kj�movem nt
�E..S ,
"t
• • _ i ma `s ��re11a to baseline f .
Lateral movement] / ; r os - ,
_—. �C 1 Magnitude�ftFa
a�Le
°87 i� CS ' 'ctO s� r ► r t "^ - t
relative,to baseline �r F 1 I
- . e mtoo;k;i ea0 msenr`3 '..:, relatrve) ) a Monitoring tgnitude: 0
Slope • December I Dirction:SE
oB si 1aSsebn . I
1 y
1148 edine Feet
Temporary Stabilization Measure
Wgiii
Stormwater Network
" SLOPE PIN MOVEMENTS-
Directioon:SVV
r SO sidTenc'n��, r-e'I`atIV�O;
,, -, 1 , USDA, b eline:0:9}�it tiEAST FILL
LLateral,movementA ., k
AeroGR'.1 . - . jz• .. �. ... Regional it
rt
1.Service Layer Credits: Source:Esri,DigitalGlobe,GeoEye. r� _ � '�relative to baselineAsheville,North Carolina
Monitoring - locations obtained r "Area Location a 1,-ft•e-- b 'd •. :
Subsidence relative to 'l
Logs"Summary and Boring prepared,r dated
29 --- --�' Magnitude- 0,1 ft x'
1•.- 1- I�F� _,baase nine:.C:0:t] a . Directic n:1NW }� ;a- 0' Geosynte& DUKE
4.Survey tolerance is 0.1 ft. Slope pins that moved more than the -A' onsultants
survey tolerance are labeled with magnitude and direction of
3. Slope pins surveyed by Mcl(im&Creed on 12 December 2017- w

--
Ilk
+ j.
i 1
gW 1
Y, 1 � '� a . yY. ., t ' - � ! r• }A • ` 1 ..i �R 'fit '�
`4. � �� r ,',� � -f I ,, ` , , ., �_ ' @ ` rG, .a ,` 111 r^r.11'''; ��Y�y[�'�.ir• r
+ _.�, r:, .� +, , +�Ira � $i��r, •1
"� •` �S1N4B=A�i1i�SWr11 �- : � � ��i . , _ . � d � ` ��'+`
-
y SW4A1;`4 _,...,',i ry' SlN8:A
tSPST11/PZ;4} `A
{
s
i
IRS' •• j►§ 1 s.. • _ t• ��L _ , �M t.._
"
4. �. an 1 I i. (APPrOX11T18te) '� ,- •a a �._•��' � '•a�r�#. +e• , } �
1 a
_____ - — _1 _ rt 4. ISM ' ..• .,, '`. a+ �:rs 1, .. , „\` s "I. + '
Legend
Surface Water
1
+ F
Sample • • x r r ar �.., •` �
Hand 1 • •meter
# kSJp � 1PZ_�- rt' 1* ;t. a�* .,c'�. � , `-�, «1� � ' lei. : .f} #�` i r- •"A°+'i
Inclinometer
apP ZA Sf'T-2JRZ 2+ 4µ Airport security fence
-i((A )p roxi ate) with concrete footer ' r ,
ParcelTemporary Stabilization Measure
r
' •
• _ • ,d t - _
IICC _• ..; „••'.� ` �I' '� R q (` I) Ix 1 1 .,1,1 200
41
':
6'dram ter�RCP
t
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING
AND INSTRUMENT LOCATIONS
• / _ 11 I 1 11 1 I : --'I �i rh +� , ii
• I_ 1 ' +` L . '• - IMH -*1'T -yYrt $ r rAsheville RegionalAirport
1 I •• • 1 I + •YI - ��; F:, F �* NorthCarolina
'47 �Ilk♦,..I I _ -I 1 I I I- 1.- •'1 I I I + '�' II • ,,.3 `` ,!i • • 't,1 i1 Y
•1 1',1• 1 • '1 i 45 �, s.. R
� ' '.,�� .1;+. •Y.+ ENEGeosyntec';' DUKE
_I _1 I • I' 1 r>'. -,,,i.11S-f' �i ., r�:' � K •I`�4- 7.* consultants
a�"
2017

Asheville Airport Area 1 Phreatic and Piezometric Surface Elevations
2130
2125
2120
v
J
(D
N
N
O
Q
N
LL
C
O
:N
2115
w
2110
2105 --- -, - -r---,--
r$y �� �\tip 3 O�ti� ��ti� 3�ti� o�ti� A\tip o � ti � � ti �
91 titi ti� ti��y ti titi�� Oti�� Oti�y Oti�y oy�ti Oti�� Oti�� Oti�y Oti�� � o��o
tPZ-1 t-PZ-2 -e--PZ-3 -S-PZ-4 --40-PZ-5 -0-PZ-6

pr-n !m^?c•TfF'2 ''� a-;,.�'y.i:"' gigwm�"g' `i, c,,
'•,C`6?l�,L ��I,� J:�a^$'.,,'f '%. y'!j .`��. ,�cjt�" ��`._ 5. 9-'P- ..,f��=�'wt-. ,_/f, ia.a� i=a.. "•E"''_ -•-.r; . ,�F".-�P,-
re.',P..-at`'W^Y- �.-'�.��"�'_'°_--�mac._,-w..G.p.�.�z'a.TY-A" �O"•�7�'�`j�y��'3Oe.�"r��'Y��h1-�l__K';����^;��t x.��y..1'i'r_$�"%rt!,C�.�-'✓.�+�'ter=:a�e�,r�'S:'~.�`ytr�'�y'�Y''�_�a,`'j.d..f-per f��'"�"-1'.°�r-�x4�'�_ ..�C<2"il•^�r94..,:n;.:•'e'`}�q`A�71 n°.�T.`r4R,�m�,.�.,z���.rp'"•;�atq���-r_���^�c�/v��•, ��r��`'.,i'-,d,4�-G ma�-(14��t':.yy„0�t• o
�1
MUN '', •, �l��MI-1111,
a�-p���✓�fi��,i�''�'�.3`�'`.�A,�.�.F..T�.•,"_. ,Ii' d{�.n,2->...:.:..-.:ra���,l f.�`,.`a���-�-iFott[r �rj_y`.,'�n r F�.,��t�t<��4.r
7�,,�r�fi�r''1.'�t-._3�C�7 A''' �•moy!{.�o�-°"l-�'D_.�(i,' ,�i�.i,��`�,`'�T�<����0�:'r"�Y4;'a19�.^�..
.^`.
� �^' �1,�/ �' ^•'� `°a ^�•� a 4- 1 c/��� a3ti�Fe., o �`yJr-r "3' s'�" lY, �^:'� n 3 ._ �+��`• � .y .� a\ "�`, y-.:9
•r�_v �'.,��:' _ �: �f � •�!� � �T � .ti d L,+s a -1�1 � �2$'� '� - .*,f __,' � � aT€
G.ax• •5rs ';r� i �•• �f�?x 11 n �.y,,r x =�§,I �• i„%
� - � d ti�< ;Jx {+� •°�` -Q ..r'� rr ,'S',�''! tc ic�3* �, �{ V, { �;�` �'e!=o' `'�.s°-._M 4;c <�" ��r
�. ..y�"�t�'� y'> �L'k'� >, �r,. - 3��4, ...��' � � GG,. ,P.'�-'`��.a"�,-� t'•.1r�A a v`7>�•; `��-'�'�"�-y:� �rj,-' �l� J�v-P!' �"``f;;,�4 ''�sy�'��..�j:
«��°+�at.� r� 'b� �' - A7,lt?.•-=i t `�;[ w
_ ; -- ..9' t. •.Fn .✓'• re..f- 'tij%�<-f_ "., a+k"+" ,� �,� s 'kr?�:i�' l�jy 1 '9�r.6�,,., -•� "?. -_( ,.�i r� i� ,'.Qr' '-ti"-
� v � e•, _,e>. r ffil-M '4 , r,�lY i='w®'.,' ..�: .`v t„�y.yt C-F`• 2 .. _
t,^" _ -" t r9z:, '•.,;? - �;, "�•,y}u,`�`,. dz �'r, tr t h ,�� 7.0 7'�F - �.✓�' -:±,." - `i7�7'a,� ,�:' rJ}'�t� , -J ,4'
.'+�"e:� �'� � :� `'��°' •�+`rfi„fl�.'�S'`��.. �_` .G.�_ � �_,
�:, ' fi �:yi k�>• 'FT"=ti: y�.r �t 4c� �,.
- -y -f� w �y.��r' .�=� ;�.'�S'', r'`-fie" c ��.,, '' �:x� �h�e�`a.>_ :���,'+-, '°''•��w'���.✓ 'F'.�e�y���,�`,;,� �t��`-.'4?\tC��t •' _'.`°' - �Q rye �-
�`.� L � �t r �6s T _ J������ it ;1n' T ..ice`� �• '�`--�=�" - ,✓,.�9�:•��F�97���fir'���y�+ - ".` - _
.i- �- �/°'. •�`- -_ �i'F.-� r_. C`"�'�._ nth �,t' j. r �_�.rse����� ���r�.,�iP t• �� �rfa�-�._ `� Xj�r:.E_r^�'�. E "�. •�;
� rF _,.3 {" tier � �' �� � •I , T } '�, � --�Y �� _
-`Z _ - � ,�-F:-�. � -,� �� P� ,.4 �Yl���: � c �Gs r,,,,' 1 k� '�te�, ! �•�. �..•.,ar. �fi-•{Y?a�y';
a Fin .` �:' �'r�'?.`, .y9? iv �° tr' p' f t. ,.. _ t�.�r�� .cr �r�t' yr3` '[' ,� �•* `�'_
•
�. -til. .-. t�`r.T„� 4' ` T,.; �.•�-�� —C-- ary,�' t,�� (i MT �L yr /�• '�;y �.'., ��� ,.d� r _r
r ,�•-we.'�'�>��,, .� ,t,cli�fy.,�h a �t��M..,• a, r ��� ���, .¢ u.f {.- '/.� x� ',� lP;
sx.,.. n -4. *s� � _ q• - 'S.. -�,,,\�'4-.�.._ �y -rn_, ,,Fi` �P� -,,,,y-i-�'ll T�J �},.�
r ar,
r � i �I� -r-2�•x:--' �!U�}f �1^ 4s �.,� °..a fist• �,rr . - t -r f.rr'�_� t�, -t r1 i}� r �- '`��,)
Y1T�ra.`x n��^ - Lf tia`4�• LL .,� 1: - � , � q .. '� !�lY; ���.-..r"�• ��.
(r
.� L°��n';ti: c ^• "� �r.1`_ - _ ��,v �t �Y�. ^3"b � _ •;r�,1��- rF qK�
:t' 8l .e Fyr„ �F �� � _ v' �� �1' .}KC.:; F i�� - c°'.}�i` �.� i•' y. :.. ��
V,rr•S- '�: _-\l'� t �,•^` �„ 'If s � Sl��ri � � �• �a' � I t-:;r d
�� f(r� /`'"'"' :41.t4 � � :�k �,`=:>7� ... �4 1 '+ ^c'- •!"- - �-S. y�-.-,'�'2 >r ~�-,2'N/% 3, '".. •:�x`!'...+
r��.,atf' ��Y`�ts_'" _ � e- - �`'•_a`R',`�•f� -..s''F.r' ��.7 "`�. - ,rY''�' .ee. � n �m' �T,•'u_, �/ �v ly f.� trti ca�, .s.
�''_-t'r*f y v� •ti, ..1 3 v ! ;,- •%� `7 '�\tS". - �c-Yro trsi f''vl t°�,'-i:e
r'„ 9r,`�, �, � .ems � .� �tiY �' n�r� l' � � r yt'S �'.�."�' r,( r °?r •e':.R V J `'�y„'•'-r..
-f', /•„�� G"'�"r%1'�r v%. �,l .+..51:-.. 1� rT� ,fit�A A _ _ � t 1��.k'� ¢� \ c�'�.,:�w
i:s. S. � �� e t�b. x✓'»✓v�'="" 'C' r r S "Pr ,�+"'- :x '�Y�w� L� r'� r • :-:y }, •a,o .// G7y�
,�ik" 'r i/� 1�; }}.r ,.w�a4 � `�? m _ � 'r�."r,(:1�71 i,,�. ,h ri: •�`�i rr'� \S'��.+��,h.. � t�,3•- Y� d^ ``�*,��'�" f
' r-/'Y t � � .-�' �o..,.' c'. - � a`.•¢��. i.+.z •4 \�,g.r ttr'�TMn 'x�'r � �
.i'.� `5 f i :. A y ',�. "` "S-,, �r r� �,r: �,q/a•' t{� a9'''�! _ -�-s,_;a '� ` � -��.j,` 4 .9 E,�t.r..l,• �
infY '�i',:s'°� ,� _ �,r. sir 4tjtk'� �j(�,r• � "'� � y�`�r'TY.,,� ��Yi. '; *+ �, c'r��t'b
�l+ 'r:� ✓o- `.-7+, ' .. ,;.0 � r �� �. f�^ �T �1i��'"- f if,+ r. �'^ 1f:,-�,�°C� }U .. - 'i � y r rt C
''r' � S �i i• 'P f� a �� Y' 1 �'�!,nr�r F'� � ` ! r �,
yam' r � ,�.��`ylr' �,� � .,, •;. =1�, ��:
ri 1 y ,�� �>o, •`tiC /.uy
>t �

From:Toepfer,John R [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 2:52 PM
To: Laverty, Brett<[e-mail]>
Cc:Sullivan, Ed M <[e-mail]>;Czop, Ryan<[e-mail]>; Pruett,
Jeremy J. <[e-mail]>; Hill,Tim S.<[e-mail]>;Weisker, Brian
R<[e-mail]>; Nordgren,Scott R.<[e-mail]>; Pickett,
Matt<[e-mail]>;Williams,Teresa Lynne<[e-mail]>;
Woodward,Tina<[e-mail]>;Walls,Jason A<Jason.Walls@duke-
energy.com>; Kafka, Michael T.<[e-mail]>; Hanchey, Matthew F.
<[e-mail]>; McIntire, Mark D<[e-mail]>;
Culbert, Erin<[e-mail]>; McNash,James-geosyntec<[e-mail]>;
Michael A. Reisman ([e-mail])<[e-mail]>;John Coon ([e-mail])
<[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: [External]Asheville Airport Area I Survey Results-April 2018
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified.Send all suspicious
email as an attachment to Report Spam.
Brett—attached is a response to your email (below)of observations regarding Area I structural fill at the
Asheville Airport. This is only being submitted electronically, please file accordingly. Let me know of
questions on the attached. 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

UKEs ., 410 S Wtmrngton Street. .
to C gh
ENERGY d 2s60
fi.
.
Ra 1
Mai � dres r
-Mall Code NC75`,
Retergh NC27B01
May 4,2019.
"
Mr.Brett Laverty:
NC DEQAsheville Regional'Office
2090 U.S:70 Hfg hwa
I . .., Swannanoa,NC A—
RE Response to the Department of_Environmental -Qualify yEmail from. April 26, 2018, Greater -
Asheville Regional Airport,Area l Structural Fill
Dear Mr:Laverty:
Dwke,Energy,is in Tr..eceipt°.of an.email from,the Department of EnvironmentAQuality(DEQ)dated A' 'I
26 2018 which included=some;observatioh . DEQ requested a`responsebto these observations from
�
Duke"Energy and the Greater Asheville"RegionaI Airportby close of business on:May 4,1018 =The:;
enclosed from'Geosyntec Consultants of:North°Carolina, P.0 (Geosyntec)"'aidresses the observations--
Jro n the email. Separate'•from'that, Duke Energy will.:co, inue with bi weekly inspections;of Area l
structural fill`and will continue with monthly sunieying o`fslope pins The.surveying resultswill continue
to be submitted to DEQand incorpo rate Inclinometer data;and piezometer data. Per DEQ,request,this
submittal will also include;daily rainfall,data. 'Duke,Energy1has.obtair ed.rainfall:data-back.to October 1, .
2017 and I6corp orate:into our future-submittals....
If'6u have any questions or:need any clarification regarding the-inf6rmation`provided, feel free.,to
contact me at,[e-mail] or at 919-546-7863 atyour convenience..
Respectfully submi° ed,
ohn'toep er, P.E. _
_ .r
- Lead Engineer,Duke Energy`EHSCCP_.
Waste&'`Grodhi&vi ter Progr'oms
cc: Matt Pickett—Duke Energy
Scott No'rdgren Duke Energy
Ed'Sullivan_Duke,Energy
Michael A. Reisman-Asheville Regional Airport
Mr:James iMcNash,P.E.—Geosyntec Consultants of"North Carolina,:P.C.
Enc: May 4, 3018 Response to NCDEQ.Observations Email Dated 26 April 2018' — Geosyntec
Consultants of North Carolina; P.C.

Geosyntec Consultants of NC,PC
ueOsy
m LU ® 1300 South Mint Street,Suite 303
L L c Charlotte,NC 28203
PH 704.227.0840
`onsy y laths www.geosyntec.com
4 May 2018
Mr. John R. Toepfer,P.E.
Lead Engineer
Duke Energy Progress,LLC.
410 S. Wilmington St./NC15
Raleigh,North Carolina 27601
Subject: Response to NCDEQ Observations email dated 26 April 2018
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 observations provided by the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) for the Area 1 Structural Fill (Area 1) April
2018 Survey Monitoring Event at the Asheville Regional Airport (ARA). Area 1 is located in
Buncombe County,North Carolina(NC) and is owned and maintained by the Asheville Regional
Airport Authority (ARAA). On 26 April 2018, Brett Laverty, P.G. (NCDEQ) e-mailed and
requested a response to observations made on the 5 April 2018 survey event data. The purpose
of this letter is to respond and clarify the observations made by NCDEQ.
The paragraphs below provide each NCDEQ observation in italic font followed by the
corresponding response in normal font.
RESPONSE TO NCDEQ OBSERVATIONS
Observation 1: According to the Geosyntec Engineering report, reported pin displacements
between 0.1 ft. and 0.2 ft may fall within the survey error but displacements above 0.2 ft are a
better indication of actual slope pin displacement.
Response: NCDEQ's observation is correct. The Engineering Analysis Report acknowledged
that the survey tolerance is 0.1 ft (1.2 inches) for the northing and easting coordinate, and
elevation measurements. More so, apparent displacements below 0.1 ft are considered negligible
and a result of limitations of the survey equipment. Computed displacements between 0.1 ft and
0.2 ft may still fall within the survey error and displacements above 0.2-ft may indicate slope pin
movement; however, routine slope inspection is warranted to ascertain whether the computed
GC6463/ARA_Area_1_S1opeMonitoring_Comment_Response
engineers I sc enlists I innovators,

Mr. John R. Toepfer, P.E.
4 May 2018
Page 2
displacements are due to survey error, slope maintenance (e.g., pins run over by maintenance
equipment), freeze thaw cycles, or observable slope movement. Duke Energy routinely inspects
the Area 1 slopes for observable slope movement and did not observe any indication or evidence
of additional displacement during a recent inspection on 30 April 2018.
Observation 2: The April 5, 2018 geopin survey identified vertical displacements along the row
I transect (see attached slope pin east cell Map) which is located at the toe of the weeping
slough. Vertical displacements ranged from 0.17 feet to 0.24 feet. DWR inspections in March
2018 identified potential movement in the scarp face at the top of the slough (see attached
photo).
Response:
A transcription error exists for the slope pin data within the spreadsheet provided to NCDEQ on
25 April 2018 which incorrectly identified potential displacement in Row 1 (slope toe) instead of
Row 8 (slope crest). Specifically, Geosyntec provides a summary spreadsheet with slope pin
survey data collected by McKim and Creed and computed displacements to Duke Energy after
each survey event. Duke Energy transcribes this spreadsheet to a Duke Energy-specific internal
monitoring spreadsheet that includes piezometer and inclinometer measurements and provides
the internal spreadsheet to NCDEQ: This response is intended to address the calculated pin
movement in Row 8 during the last monitoring event in lieu of the Row 1 pins.
Geosyntec reviewed survey data collected by McKim and Creed in April 2018 and computed
vertical displacements between -0.124 ft and -0.245 ft in crest slope pins A8, B8, C8, E8, and F8
since the baseline survey. Apparent slope movements were previously identified in some of
these pins during prior slope pin monitoring survey events. The slope pin data indicates pin
movement of-0.245 ft and should be inspected to assess the source of the apparent movement
(e.g., slope maintenance, freeze thaw cycles, slope movement).
NCDEQ identified a small scarp above the temporary stabilization measure and attached a
photograph from a March 2018 visit. The referenced scarp was observed during prior site visits
and is delineated on Figure 2 of the Engineering Analysis Report. Duke Energy routinely
inspects the Area 1 slopes for observable slope movement and did not observe any indication or
evidence of additional displacement in the vicinity of the Row 8 pins during a recent inspection
on 30 April 2018.
Observation 3: The April 5, 2018 geopin survey identified vertical displacements of 0.24 feet
and 0.29 feet at geopin J2 and B respectively.
Response: Acknowledged. Slope pins Jl and J2 were computed with apparent lateral
displacement in each survey event subsequent to the baseline survey event on 4 October 2017.
GC6463/ARA_Area_1_SlopeMonitoring_Comment Response
engineers I scientists I innovators,

Mr. John R. Toepfer, P.E.
4 May 2018
Page 3
Geosyntec recommended continued observation of Transect J, installed through the steepest
portion of the north Area 1 slope. Duke Energy routinely inspects the Area 1 slopes for
observable slope movement and did not observe signs of slope displacement at Transect J during
a recent inspection on 30 April 2018.
Observation 4: The row 1 transect and the J transect are associated with portions of the fill
slope that have a Factor of Safety less than 1.
Response: Factor of Safety (FS) is defined as the ratio of resisting forces (resistance) vs. the
driving forces (load). As such, a FS less than 1.0 indicates a failure has occurred for the modeled
conditions.
As required by NCDEQ, Geosyntec prepared a slope stability study on behalf of Duke Energy
for the north Area 1 slope which is provided as Appendix E to the Engineering Analysis Report.
The slope stability study's objective was to identify the root cause of the soil cap breach and
compute the estimated FS. The slope stability study evaluated three cross sections, as shown on
Figure 9 of the Engineering Analysis Report, to compute the FS for veneer, global, and base
sliding mechanisms. Cross Section B is located through the observed breach area and a FS of
0.9 was computed for the veneer stability case that considered elevated water levels within Area
1 that yield a seepage face within the slope. This veneer stability case represents the surficial
sliding of the soil cap observed at this location on 7 September 2017. As such, the field
observation of a veneer failure — not global — confirmed the computed FS of 0.9 for the
representative Cross Section B. Geosyntec demonstrated that the global static FS exceeds the
target of 1.5 for the conditions modeled for the Engineering Analysis Report. Geosyntec also
demonstrated that the removal of the seepage face in Cross Section B improves the computed FS
above the target FS of 1.5 for the veneer stability case.
Cross Section C was evaluated for the Area 1 slope near Transect J, which contains a different
external geometry, subsurface geometry, and phreatic conditions compared to Cross Section B.
Water elevations from PZ-4 and PZ-6 were utilized to develop the phreatic surface for Cross
Section C and the slope stability model assumes a conservative (e.g., worst-case) seepage face
forms at the external boundary of the slope. Under these conditions, conservative FSs of 0.8 and
1.9 were computed for the veneer and global stability cases, respectively, under this worst-case
scenario to inform future slope inspections. However, a seepage face, condition required to
compute a FS of 0.8, was not observed at Cross Section C or near Transect J, which was
confirmed during the 30 April 2018 inspection.
Observation 5: Geosyntec recommends that the northeast slope of the east cell near transect J
be inspected thoroughly for signs of displacement. In addition, the west cell adjacent to transects
M and N should also be inspected for surface manifestation of displacement and to assess
GC6463/ARA_Area 1_SlopeMonitoring_Comment_Response
engineers [ scientists I innovators

Mr. John R. Toepfer, P.E.
4 May 2018
Page 4
whether computed displacements are the result of routine maintenance, freeze-thaw cycles, or
systematic or intrinsic survey error.
Response: Acknowledged. Until a path forward for Area 1 is identified between stakeholders,
routine slope inspection and monitoring is recommended.
Observation 6: Changes in the piezometric surface elevations at PZ-2 is similar to the
changes/trends in the phreatic surface elevations at PZ-1, PZ-3, PZ-4, PZ-S, and PZ-6 (see
attached phreatic and piezometric elevation chart).
Response: Acknowledged.
Observation 7: The piezometric surface elevations at PZ-2 are similar to the phreatic surface
elevations at PZ-S and greater than phreatic surface elevations at PZ-1.
Response: Acknowledged.
Observation 8: The phreatic surface elevation at PZ-4 is significantly higher than the phreatic
surface elevations at PZ-1, PZ-3, PZ-5, and PZ-6.
Response: Acknowledged. The phreatic surface elevation trend was presented in Figure 6 of the
Engineering Analysis Report.
CLOSURE
If you have any•questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Mr.
James D.McNash.704.227.0855 or at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
kmes D. McNash, P.E.
Project Engineer
or M. Dam ceno, Ph , P.E.
cipal Engineer
G C 6463/ARA_Area_I_S 1opeMonitoring_Comment_Response
.enghieelws ( sc bri'tis s I irmoyatars

Laverty, Brett
From: Laverty, Brett
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 9:37 AM
To: Toepfer, John R; Michael A. Reisman ([e-mail])
Cc: Davidson, Landon ([e-mail])
Subject: Asheville Airport Area 1 CCP Structural Fill- NOV-2018-DV-0101
Attachments: 04112018_NOV2018 DV0101.docx.pdf
John and Mike,
Attached is a copy of the Notice of Violation that will be sent to both Duke Energy and the Asheville Regional Airport.
The NOV's will be going out in today's mail. Let me know if you have any 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 rtyCa.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.
i
1

NAME
h 26so
1 [, Panergy--itch-SVP,
7525 62
Owre J 6 S uth ra Environmental,Health, Safety-'
Ch St, ty
®'� ®�jl urc
f Charlotte,NC 28202 EC3XP ._ IpCldi
AVL
A'r"E:S
APB 1 '
) 2018
RcEMElVT� �,
')ATE
G&_-Elq cARd REc�
D aao

4, Fletcher,
7009 1680 DODO 7515�¢ 15-17% leiweis, AAE, Executive Director 4
NA C er Asheville Regional Airport Authority incident#201
Terinal Dr, Suite 1AVL_MV_201
CElt TIF(ED LETTER DATES Nc 28732
-LEA SEEN7CR MEFOLL0-W-fNG DAMS!NBIM5
TRACKING OATES:
DATE ENFORCEMENT SE
Av& 141,
`SATE F DRGEMENT REC'D & SIGNED SATE GREEN C-OvRD.RF-C'D¢,RO•
e

1
ROY COOPER
F Governor
MICHAEL S.REGAN
r. a. Secretatg-
Water Resources LINDA CULPEPPER
Environmental Quality April 11, 2018 Interim Director
CERTIFIED MAIL 7009 1680 0000 7515 6142
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Paul Draovitch—SVP, Environmental, Health, &Safety
Duke Energy
526 South Church Street, EC3XP
Charlotte, N.C. 28202
CERTIFIED MAIL 7009 1680 0000 7515 6159
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Lew Bleiweis,A.A.E, Executive Director
Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority
61 Terminal Drive, Suite 1
Fletcher, N.C. 28732
Subject: NOTICE OF VIOLATION
NOV-2018-DV-0101 (Incident#201800515)
N.C.G.S. § 143-215.1(a)(1)—Make any outlets to the waters of the State;
Coal Combustion Products (CCP) Distribution Structural Fill Permit WQ0000020
Duke Energy Progress, Inc.
Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority
CCP Structural Fill Projects—Asheville Airport
Buncombe County, N.C.
Dear Mr. Draovitch and Mr. Bleiweis,
Chapter 143 of the North Carolina General Statutes authorizes and directs the Environmental
Management Commission (EMC) of the Department of Environmental Quality to protect and
preserve the water and air resources of the State.The Division of Water Resources (DWR) has
the delegated authority to enforce North Carolina's water pollution control laws and
regulations adopted by the EMC.The Notice of Violation (NOV) is a notification intended to
advise you of the legal requirements under North Carolina law, and is being issued for violations
of North Carolina's water pollution control law, set forth at N.C.G.S. § 143-215.1(a), and Coal
Combustion Products (CCP) Structural Fill Permit No. WQ 0000020 issued to Duke Energy on
September 2, 2015.
A NOV (NOV-2017-PC-0616)was issued to Duke Energy on November 17, 2017 for failure to
properly maintain and operate the ash structural fill facility as required by the CCP Structural
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
2090 U.S.Highway 70,Swannanoa,North Carolina 28778
828-296-4500

Paul Draovitch
Lew Bleiweis
April 11,2018
Page 2 of 3
Fill Permit WQ0000020. On November 1, 2017, Duke Energy and DWR staff conducted a surface
water investigation on the north-side of the Area 1 CCP fill structure. Four areas of active water
seepage at the base of the Area 1 fill were identified as containing constituents potentially
associated with CCP impact. The seepage areas are identified as SW4-AI, SW5-AI, SW7-AI, and
SW8-AI.The contaminants of concern (COC) suggest seepage water has been impacted by
CCPs. These COCs include, but may not limited to, arsenic, barium, boron, cobalt, strontium,
and sulfate. Of these four seep samples, results for seep SW8-A1 clearly indicate a chemical
signature indicative of CCP impact.The seeps discharge to an unnamed tributary to the French
Broad River(Index 6-(54.75), class B) known locally as Hidden Creek.
The discharge from seep SW8-AI constitutes a violation of NCGS § 143-215.1(a)(1). Pursuant to
this law, no person shall "make any outlets into the waters of the State" without first receiving
a permit and "compl[ying] with all conditions set forth in the permit." Where a permit has not
been obtained authorizing the discharge of pollutants to State waters, the discharge is
prohibited per N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1(a). Both Duke Energy and the Greater Asheville
Regional Airport Authority may be held liable for violation of this law. Pursuant to N.C.G.S. §
143-215.6A both parties may be subject to civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day for so long as
this violation continues. Additionally, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 143-215.6C, DWR may request the
Attorney General's office to institute a civil action against both parties for injunctive relief to
restrain this violation.
The discharge from seep SW8-A1 also constitutes a violation of CCP Structural Fill Permit No.
WQ0000020, which requires, among other things,that the structural fill be effectively
maintained and operated at all times so there is no discharge to surface waters (Section 11.1).
Duke Energy is responsible for compliance with the conditions set forth in the permit and may
be subject to the above referenced civil penalties and injunctive relief for continued violation of
the permit.
Both Duke Energy and the Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority shall contact the
Asheville Regional Office DWR no later than fourteen (14) days of receipt of this NOV.

Paul Draovitch
Lew Bleiweis
April 11,2018
Page 3 of 3
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Brett
Laverty or me at [phone].
Sincerely,
DocuSigned by:
7E617A38285848C...
G. Landon Davidson, P.G., Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations
Division of Water Resources
Asheville Regional Office
ec: Michael Reisman—Asheville Regional Airport
John Toepfer—Duke Energy
DEQ DWR CO
WQAsheville Files,
WQ Enforcement/Non Discharge(laserfiche)

' J .
Christopher Ventaloro
Water Quality Standards Specialist
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
919 807 6421 office
christopher.ventaloroCa)ncdenr.gov
Mailing Address: 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1611
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St., Raleigh, NC 27604
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,January 30, 2018 9:55 AM
To: Brower, Connie; Ventaloro, Christopher
Subject: Boron Surface Water Standard
Chris and Connie,
I am working on a failing coal ash structural fill at the Asheville Regional Airport. One of the groundwater
seeps associated with the structural fill is discharging (dissolved) boron in the range of 1,200 to 1,400 ug/I. The
seep is discharging into a Class B stream. Can you provide some guidance on a possible boron surface water
standard? We are also seeing elevated barium (219—230 ug/1), cobalt (18 ug/1), and molybdenum (150— 170
ug/1). Any advice you can provide would be greatly appreciated.
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(4ncde n r.gov
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778
'y -5:>^AI'othfng 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: Ventaloro, Christopher
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:11 PM
To: Laverty, Brett; Brower, Connie
Subject: Re: Boron Surface Water.Standard
Hi, Brett.
We have the following calculated protective values that apply for Class C& B surface waters (all aquatic life
criteria are based on limited data):
Barium
• Aquatic life (freshwater) = 89 ug/L(chronic), 890 ug/L (acute)
o The study these values are based on would suggest that toxicity is hardness-dependent
(greater toxicity at lower hardness).
• Fish consumption = 200000 ug/L(non-cancer)
• FYI -we also have an 02B water quality standard of 1000 ug/L that applies only to water supplies.
Boron
• Aquatic life (freshwater) = 150 ug/L(chronic), 1500 ug/L(acute)
o The study these values are based on would suggest that toxicity is hardness-dependent
(greater toxicity at lower hardness).
• Irrigation = 750 ug/L
o This is an old EPA criterion that is based on toxicity to sensitive crops such as citrus. It appears
in the 1986 Quality Criteria for Water.
• Fish Consumption = Missing bioaccumulation/bioconcentration information, cannot calculate criterion
Cobalt
• Aquatic life (freshwater) = 1.6 ug/L (chronic), 16 ug/L (acute)
o The study these values are based on would suggest that toxicity is hardness-dependent
(greater toxicity at lower hardness).
• Fish Consumption =4 ug/L(non-cancer)
Molybdenum
• Aquatic life (freshwater) = 89 ug/L(chronic), 890 ug/L(acute)
o The study these values are based on would suggest that toxicity is hardness-dependent
(greater toxicity at lower hardness).
• Fish Consumption = 2000 ug/L(non-cancer)
Hope this helps and let me know if you have questions!
i

Laverty, Brett
From: Ventaloro, Christopher
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018.11:53 AM
To: Laverty, Brett; Brower, Connie
Cc: Davidson, Landon; Campbell, Ted
Subject: Re: Boron Surface Water Standard
Sorry again: Meant to get rid of the Molybdenum standard. Reviewing the old tox calculation sheet revealed
that none of the studies were obtainable for review.
That leaves us with the following protective values,that apply for Class C& B surface waters(all aquatic life
Criteria are based on limited data):
Barium
• Aquatic life (freshwater) = 21000 ug/L(chronic), 210000 ug/L(acute)
• Fish consumption = 200000 ug/L (non-cancer)
FYI - we also have an 02B water quality standard of 1000 ug/L that applies only to water supplies.
Boron
• Aquatic life (freshwater) = 150 ug/L (chronic), 1500 ug/L (acute)
o The study these values are based on would suggest that toxicity is hardness-dependent
(greater toxicity at lower hardness).
• Irrigation = 750 ug/L
o This is an old EPA criterion that is based on toxicity to sensitive crops such as citrus. It appears
in the 1986 Quality Criteria for Water.
• Fish Consumption = Missing bioaccu,mulation/bioconcentration information, cannot calculate criterion
Cobalt
• Aquatic life (freshwater) = 1.6 ug/L (chronic), 16 ug/L (acute)
o The study these values are based on would suggest that toxicity is hardness-dependent
(greater toxicity at lower hardness).
• Fish Consumption =4 ug/L (non-cancer)
Christopher Ventaloro
Water Quality Standards Specialist
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
919 807 6421 office
christogher.ventaloro(a).ncdenr.gov
Mailing Address: 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1611
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St., Raleigh, NC 27604
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:Ventaloro, Christopher
Sent:Wednesday, February 21, 2018 11:11 AM
To: Laverty, Brett; Brower, Connie
Cc: Davidson, Landon; Campbell,Ted
Subject: Re: Boron Surface Water Standard
Hi, Brett.
I made an error in the Barium & Molybdenum aquatic life data selection. I didn't notice that the
reference reported the toxicity values as "greater than" concentrations rather than measured concentrations.
Since other available toxicity information indicates that toxicity occurs at much higher measured
concentrations it would be more appropriate to use those values.
The new Barium standards are:
Barium
• Aquatic life (freshwater) = 21000 ug/L(chronic), 210000 ug/L (acute)
• Fish consumption = 200000 ug/L (non-cancer)
• FYI - we also have an 02B water quality standard of 1000 ug/L that applies only to water supplies.
The new Molybdenum standards are:
Molybdenum
• Aquatic life (freshwater) = 2500 ug/L (chronic), 25000 ug/L (acute)
• Fish Consumption = 2000 ug/L (non-cancer)
I'm sorry for any problems this may cause.
Christopher Ventaloro
Water Quality Standards Specialist
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
919 807 6421 office
christogher.ventaloro(aD,ncdenr.gov
Mailing Address: 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1611
Physical Address: 512 North Salisbury St., Raleigh, NC 27604
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, February 20, 2018 12:45:07 PM
To:Ventaloro, Christopher; Brower, Connie
2

• • • fB.
■ Complete items 1,2,and 3. gnature■ Print your name and address on the reverse jame�Chap apAgent
so that we can return the card to you. Ad ressei
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, eceived by(Printed Name) C; e f eliver
or on the front if space permits. „•, -?:: --
1. Article Addressed to: i,D:;,cIs gdiy,bYi(ep�eylll�rjr%ddress be ow: El No
Duke different from i em 1, ❑Yes
I
M Paul Draovitch—SVPEnvironmental,Health,1�afety_ fY�S
;
Duke Energy
526 South Church Street,EC3XP AUG 6 2018
Charlotte,N.C.28202 I
VwV M -
I !64Ntcl Type- I�jrF,ce Priority Mail Express@
Illlil IIIIIII IIII I II I I I III I I III I I II II ❑AdutSig�ue`'—� Registered MailTM
AVdu It Signature Restricted Delivery ❑Registered Mail Restrict
ertified Mal @ 11 Delivery
9590 9402 3363 7227 0554 29 ❑Certified Mail Restricted Delivery Return Receipt for
❑Collect on Delivery Merchandise
9__ArticIe.Number_(Fransfer_from-service-lab el) ❑Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery ❑Signature ConfirmationT
P Insured Mail ❑Signature Confirmation
7017 2620 0000 9759 4766 ❑Insured Mail Restricted Delivery Restricted Delivery
_ I (over$500)
PCFnrm13R11 .hdu9niAP4N17.riq In9indn-4d.FRI III nnmactir.RatiirnRanaini

USPS:KlPff
First-Class Mail
Postage&Fees Paid
USPS
Permit No.G-10
9590 9402 3363 7227 0554 29
United States •Sender:Please print your name,address,and ZIP+4®in this box*
Postal Service
NC Dept of Environmental Quality
WR-Water Quality Regional Operations
Asheville Regional Office
2090 US 70 Highway
Swannanoa, North Carolina 28778-8211
Perrmit WQ0000020
v
l,�ill>>1u1,I11,•Ill'lI'11i1I11IlIi'I111i11�IiIlllln'1111111'Il

sv,ENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECT/0 �—'��MPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY
■ Complete items 1,2,and 3. 4W Signature
■ Print your name and address on the reverse ❑Agent
so that we can return the card to you. , b ❑Addressei
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, B. Received by(Printed Name) C. Date of Deliven
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to: D. kldelivetx,atidre5shcd�f rent from item 14 ❑Yes
If YES,enter cue every dfess%below: ❑No
Lew Bleiweis,A_A.E,Executive Director
Greater Asheviile Regional Airport Authority AUG + C 2018
61 Terminal-°Dive,Suite 1 U
_Fletcher, 732
"later Quill
II I IIIIII IIII III I I II I II I I I III I I I I III II I I Li I III ,r+
;Ce Prl ty Mail Expre
sso
❑Adult Signature eredMaiIT"
❑Adult Signature Restricted Delivery ❑Registered Mail Restrict
�etied Ma®
9590 9402 3363 7227 0554 12 ❑Certified Mail Restricted Delivery livery
Receipt for
❑Collect on Delivery Merchandise
2. Article Nurgber(Transfer from servlce la6J•: ❑Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery ❑Signature Confirmations
i ;;. !+ 1 ' t I0suied1Mall fE !j [ r❑Signature Confirmation
7 17 1262 D '0 0 0 0 9 7 59!!4 7�3'5 117 insdR 'fvlaii`.FiPstricted Deriverjr !! Restricted Delivery
I. (over$Saop,
PC Fnrm RRi 1 .hJV 9rli.ri PAAI 75Rn-n9-nnn-An53 �•D�'�a..,'�. •Fi,,T. rinmue#in Ruff;m Rartuini

USPS TRACK NG#
First-CIasS Mail„
4is 111111 Postage&Fees Paid
USPS
z Permit No.G-10
9590 9402 .111 --1227 0554 12
United States •Sender:Please print your name,address,and ZIP+4®in this box*
Postal Service
¢�JNC Dept of Environmental Quality
WR-Water Quality Regional Operations
Asheville Regional Office
2090 US 70 Highway
Swannanoa, North Carolina 28778-8211
Perrmit W00000020
filill{I{rill�fr!{i{1{{jil'i�iii�ili,�l,�rrl{�irrfrlaylJrll,�ti'�'{