CCB0053_CA_geoprobe_20010706

07/10/01, TUE 04:20 FAX [phone]
GTSI
IQ) 001.
COVERFAX
Company Name:
J) CUR
►'
FuNumber: 'Phone Number:
Total pages, s
•ff.*;4
.... ► . ,NIB
i
� � I
"y
Aw
�1. .. �� ,� ' ' a' _ ;: � K . ♦ sib ►. ►, ils . .

07/10/01 TUE 04:21 FAX [phone] GTSI
19002
ROUND
ECHNOLOGICAL
ERVICES
NC.
July 6, 2001
Nft- William Hocutt
NCDENR Division of Solid Waste Mal *gement
Mail Service Center 1646
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
RE: "Race Park USA"
Proposed Conditioned Ash structural fill site: geoprobe borings
Dooley Road, Iredeff County
Mooresville, North Carolina
GTSI-10123
Dear Mr. Hocut,
Ground Technological Services Inc. rSI) in conjunction with SAEDACCO Drilling has performed
a subsurface evaluation within geopr(fibe holes on the referenced site. In accordance with the
NCDENR 15A- 1 3B. 17. - "Conditioned Ash Restrictions?, ash fill setback requirements include a
minimum 2.0-foot vertical separation from the ash fill horizon to the top of the seasonal high
groundwater level. The work was perfbrmed on July 3, 2001 to determine existing groundwater
elevation measurements within the Geoprobe holes in addition to the maximum high groundwater
fluctuation levels based on soil evaluatii)ns within the, push holes.
Previous work included nine hand auger; borings on May 27, 2001 advanced below residual grade to
a depth of 3.0 feet below residual gradp (reported May 2% 2001). The borings were advanced for
groundwater measurement purposes, with groundwater noted in the topographically lower B4 (44�)
and D-8 (36") borings.
According to NRCS, DENR and USG S ) officials, groundwater elevations within one Mecklenburg
County well has fluctuated up to approximately 6.0 feet over ten-year periods. Thus based on drought
conditions encountered regionally over the, last 3 years, the 6.0 foot fluctuation noted above, and
previous undetermined on -site groundwater fluctuation levels, DENR officials recommended a
minimum of 8.0 feet of earthen fill (inclusive of 2.0-foot vertical setback) prior to structural ash fill.
placement.
P.Q. Box 2246 - Huntersvifle, NC �?-8070 - Phone [phone] a Fax [phone]

07/10/01 TUF 04:21 FAX [phone] GTST 19003
July 6, 2001
Page 2
INVESTIGATION:
Subsequent to our prior report, contrad.tors have installed, structural fill ranging in depth from 0.0'
(higher elevations) to 5.0 feet (lower elevations). GTSI retained SAEDAACO of Charlotte, N. C. for
direct push drilling at nine locations depicted in Figure 1. The boring locations were surveyed and
staked with elevations recorded at existing grade surface elevations recorded prior to our arrival and
following the structural fill installation. The borings were terminated at a depth of8.0 feet below the
existing soil subgrade elevations.
Push driven sampling tubes collected soil cores in sealed plastic tubes representing the interval from
0.0 to 8.0 feet below existing grade. A sails evaluation of the core samples interpreted groundwater
measurements, textural properties and hydric soil indicators including gleying and mottling.
Surveyed grade elevations at the nine g,oprobe holes varied from 817.68' to 837.93'
RESULTS -
Bright orange mottles indicative of seasimaily elevated groundwater were encountered in B-5, B-6,
B-7 and B-8 at elevations ranging from 6.0 to 6.8 feet below existing grade, In B=8, low chroma
gleyed soils signifying long term reducirig, saturated conditions were noted in at 7.1', with saturated
soils encountered at 7.8 `. Soils were noted as moist generally below 6.0'. A more complete
description of the soil characteristics hats been provided in, the Appendix.
CONCLUSIONS:
GTSI recommends installing at least 2.0 feet of additional earthen fdl in the lower elevation areas
represented by B-3, B-4, B-5� 3-6 B 'j' and B-8 to maintain the required 2.0 feet vertical setback
distance from seasonal high groundwater elevations. Borings locations have been plotted on the
attached drawing.

07/10/01 TUE 04:22 FAX [phone] GTSI
19004
July 6, 2001
Page 3
If you should have any questions, Please: call us at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Ground Technological Services, Inc.
Geoff Underwood
Staff Geologist
i'
Mark W. Hoidas P.
Vice President- Engineering
c.c. Tim Jewett DENR Division of Waste Management
Winton -Salem Regional Office: 585 Ws,ughtown Rd. 27107
c.c. Dean Johnson
Ash Basics Company
N
no

07/10/01 TUE 04:22 FAX [phone] GTSI 19005
a r
OEOP OBE LOOS: July 3, 2001
n
'.'
927.91
Tan sandy silt
I
0.0 0.5
Moist at
6.5
Red brown clayey sand
0.54.8
Red sand
1.8-.3.2
Sa route- Brown sand w/cla
3.2-•8.0
826.72
Brown sand w/red silty clay
0.0-3.2
Moist
6.2
Sa rolite: SM sillsand
3.2-8.0
818.73
Light brown silty sand
0.0-0.9
Moist
6.0
Orange/brown/wliite sandy silt
0.9-•2.9
Saprolite:brown/t lacksandy
2.9-8.0
Silt
823.45
Brown silty sand
0.0-0.4
Moist
6.0
Grey sand
0.4-1.6
Orange silty sand
3.64.2
Saprolite: white -grey -orange
4.2-.8.0
silty sand
820.84
Dark brown clayey sand
0.04.1
Orange mottles
6.8
with black organir,;s
and moist
orange brown sandy clay
4.1-6.8
tan stickys22k c jay6.8-
$.0
837.93
Dack red silty cky
0.04.1
Orange mottles
6.1 (moderate)
Dark red sandy clay
4-1-6.1
moist
6.1
an Tsand clay
6.1-8.0
.831.27
Dark red sandy silt
0.0-2.1
Orange mottles
6.0 (moderate)
Blank organics
2.1-.6.0
moist
6.0
Tan sand w/silt !
6.0-8.0
818.78
Red -brown silty simd
0.0-2.9
Orange mottles
6.5 -8.0 (Rent)
Red silty sand
2.9- 4.2
Grey gleying
7.1-8.0
Brown silty clay v7/sand
4.2- 5.5
Wet
7.8
Brown organics
5.5-6.5
Gre s cla
6.5- 8.0
817.68
Dark red sandy silt
0.0-1.9
Orange mottles
6.1
Brown sandy silt :
1.9-3.2
saturated
7.5
Black organics
3.2-8.0