**HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD COVER SHEET**

**Name of Facility:** US Finishing/Cone Mills

**EPA ID No.** SCD003358744

Contact Persons

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 4:

Corey Hendrix, Remedial Project Manager (404) 562

- 8738 Jennifer Wendel, NPL Coordinator (404) 562

- 8799

Investigation: Preliminary Assessment 12/17/1985 Site Investigation Report 06/29/1993 Expanded Site Inspection 12/20/2003 Site Assessment Report 0 4/28/2005 Expanded Site Inspection Update 11/15/200 6

Documentation Record: Alexis McKinnon, Project Manager Oneida Total Integrated Enterprises (OTIE), START (678) 355

- 5550

Pathways, Components, or Threats Not Scored

The surface water migration pathway was sufficient to list the site; therefore, the gro und water migration pathway, soil exposure pathway, and air migration pathway were not evaluated.1 **HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD**

Name of Facility: US Finishing/Cone Mill s

EPA Region: 4 Date Prepared: March 2011

Street Address of Facility*: 3335 Old Buncomb e Road

City, County, State, Zip: Greenville, Greenville County, South Carolina, 29617

General Location in the State: Northwest

Topographic Map: Greenville, South Carolina

Latitude: 34o 52 ′ 59

. 852 ′′ North Longitude: 82o 25 ′ 34

. 69 ′′ West (Ref. 3 , Ref. 7 )

*The street address, coordinates, and contaminant locations presented in this Hazard Ranking System (HRS) documentation record identify the general area in
which the site is located. They represent one or more locations that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers to be part of the site based on the screening information EPA used to evaluate the site for National Priorit ies List (NPL) listing. EPA lists national priorities among the known "releases or
threatened releases" of hazardous substan ces; thus, the focus is on the release, not precisely delineated boundaries. A site is defined as where a hazardous substance has been "deposited, stored, placed, or otherwise come to be located." Generally, HRS scoring and the subsequent listing of a rel ease merely represent the initial determination that a certain area may need to be addressed under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Recovery Act (CERCLA). Accordingly, EPA contemplates that the preliminary description of facility
bo undaries at the time of scoring will be refined as more information is developed as to where the contamination has come to be located.

**Scores**

Air Pathway Not Scored
Ground W ater Pathway Not Scored Soil Exposure Pathway Not Sc ored Surface Water Pathway 100 .00

**HRS SITE**  **SCORE 50**  **.00**2 **WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING HRS SCORE**

S S 2

1. Ground water Migration Pathway Score (S gw ) (from Table 3

- 1, line 13) NS NS

_

2a. Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration

Co mponent

(from Table 4

- 1, line 30) 100 10,000

2b. Ground water to Surface Water Migration
Component

(from Table 4

- 25, line 28) NS NS

2c. Surface Water Migration Pathway Score (S

sw ) Enter the larger of lines 2a and 2b as the pathway score

. 100 10,000

3. Soil Exposure Pathway Score (S

s ) (from Table 5

- 1, line 22) NS NS

4. Air Migration Pathway Score (S

a ) (from Table 6

- 1, line 12) NS NS

5. Total of S gw 2 + S
sw 2 + S
s 2 + S a 2

_ 10,000

6. **HRS Score** Divide the val ue on line 5 by 4 and take the square root 50 .00

NS

- Not Scored
Reference 13 **SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORESHEET** REF. 1, TABLE 4

- 1

**Factor Categories and Factors Maximum** 

**Value Value**  **Assigned**

**DRINKING WATER THREAT**

**Li kelihood of Release:** 

1. Observed Release 550 550

2. Potential to Release by Overland Flow:

2a. Containment 10 NS

_

2b. Runoff 25 NS

2c. Distance to Surface Water 25 NS

2d. Potential to Release by Overland Flow (lines 2a x [2b + 2c]) 500 NS

3. Potential to Release by Flood:

3a. Containment (Flood) 10 NS

3b. Flood Frequency 50 NS

3c. Potential to Release by Flood

( lines 3a x 3b) 500 NS

4. Potential to Release
(lines 2d + 3c, subject to a maximum of 500) 500 NS

5. Likelihood of Release (higher of lines 1 and 4) 550 550

**Waste Characteristics:**

6. Toxicity/Persistence a NS

7. Hazardous Waste Quantity a NS

8. Waste Characteristics 100 NS

**Targets:**

9. Nearest Intake 50

_ NS

10. Population:

10a. Level I Concentrations b NS

10b. Level II Concentrations b NS

10c. Potential Contamination b NS

10d. Population (lines 10a + 10b + 10c) b NS

11. Resources 5 NS

12. Targets (lines 9 + 10d + 11) b NS4 **Factor Categories and Factors Maximum** 

**Value Value**  **Assigned**

**DRINKING WATER THREAT (Concluded)**

**Drinking Water Threat Score:**

13. Drinking Water Threat Score ([lines 5 x 8 x 12]/82,500, subject to a max imum of 100) 100

_ NS

__

**HUMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT**

**Likelihood of Release:**

14. Likelihood of Release (same value as line 5) 550 550

**Waste Characteristics:**

15. Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation a

_ 5 x 10 8

_

16. Hazardous Waste Qua ntity a

_ 10,000

_

17. Waste Characteristics 1,000 1,000

**Targets:**

18. Food Chain Individual 50

_ 45

19. Population:

19a

. Level I Concentrations b 0

19b. Level II Concentrations b 0.03

19c. Potential Human Food Chain Contam ination b 0.000 3

19d. Population (lines 19a + 19b + 19c) b 0. 0 30 3

20. Targets (lines 18 + 19d) b 45

. 0 30 3

**Human Food Chain Threat Score:**

21. Human Food Chain Threat Score ([lines 14 x 17 x 20]/82,500, subject to a
maximum of 1 00) 100 .00 100 .005 **Factor Categories and Factors Maximum** 

**Value Value**  **Assigned**

**ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT**

**Likelihood of Release:**

22. Likelihood of Release (same value as line 5) 550

_ 550

Waste Characteristics:

23. Ecosystem Toxicity/Per sistence/
Bioaccumulation a 5 x 10 8

_

24. Hazardous Waste Quantity a 10,000

25. Waste Characteristics 1,000 1,000

**Targets:**

26. Sensitive Environments:

26a

. Level I Concentrations b

_ 0

26b. Level II Concentrations b

_ 25

26c. Potential Contamination b

_ 1

_

26d. Sensitive Environments

(lines 2 6a + 26b + 26c) b

_ 26

27. Targets (value from 26d) b 26

**Environmental Threat Score:**

28. Environmental Threat Score ([lines 22 x 25 x 27]/82,50 0, subject to a maximum of 60) 60 .00 60 .00

**SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORE FOR A WATERSHED**

29. Watershed Score c (lines 13 + 21 + 28, subject to a maximum of 100) 100 .00 100 .00

**SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATI ON COMPONENT SCORE** 

30. Component Score (S of ) c

, (highest score from line 29 for all watersheds evaluated, subject to a maximum of 100) 100 .00 100 .00

a Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category.

b Maximum value not applicable.

c Do not round to nearest integer.II NOTES:
Ortho Quads

­ USGS Quad ID

- 34082-H4

Paris Mountain South Carolina

USGS Quad ID

- 34082-G4

Greenville South Carolina

Feet


## o 2,000 4,000



# j

US FINISHING I CONE MILLS GREENVILLE,
GREENVILLE COUNTY,

SOUTH CAROLINA
EPA 10 No. SCOOO3358744

FIGURE 1
GENERAL LOCATION MAP

# ~OTIE Oneida TOlalln!egraled Enterprises -f.,rq;,.:, 0 ;; &1

I!!

u. '" 5

Cl 

# i

cOl ::;; '" 

# i ... '"

iI 

# I oj

rn

wUnited States Environmental Protection Agency



### US FINISHING / CONE M ILLS GREENVILLE, G R EE N VILLE COUNTY, SOUTH CAR OLI NA
EPA ID No. S CD003358744



## FIGURE 2
PROPERTY LAYOUT MAP 

# Legend

Northwestern
Reservoir Former Northern
Reservoir

Main Plant

Langston Creek Impoundment

Reedy River Floodplain Dump Area

Former Pump

House Groundwater
Treatment Plant Sludge Burial Area Basement Water
Treatment
Plant

Former Chromium
Line

Former Blue

Pond Langston Creek Impoundment Grey
Warehouse

Aeration Lagoon Dam

Sheds

Former Tank
Areas Pits Former Coal Pile

Former

Brine Pit Lakeview Middle School Scale (feet) 0 500 1,000 Underground Piping (approximate location) Boundary of property currently/previously owned by
Cone Mills/AFP Current property feature outline



### Greenville County,
South Carolina

Main Plant Inset Former property feature outline

Sources: 2010 Greenville Property Tax Maps (Ref. 4); 1991 GeoTrans Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (Ref. 8); 2010 Google Earth (Image City of Greenville GIS) (Ref. 71)United States Environmental Protection Agency



### US FINISHING / CONE M ILLS GREENVILLE, G R EE N VILLE COUNTY, SOUTH CAR OLI NA
EPA ID No. S CD003358744



## FIGURE 3
SAMPLE LOCATION MAP 

# Legend

Scale (feet)
0 500 1,000 Boundary of property currently/previously owned by
Cone Mills/AFP Current property feature outline



### Greenville County,
South Carolina

Former property feature outline

Sources: 2010 Greenville Property Tax Maps (Ref. 4); 1991 GeoTrans Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (Ref. 8); 2006 SCDHEC ESI Update (Ref. 9); 2004 SCDHEC ESI (Ref. 10); 2005 MACTEC Site Assessment (Ref. 41); 2010 Google Earth (Image City of Greenville GIS) (Ref. 71)



### USF-016-SE

USF-009-SE

USF-011-SE

USF-013-SW/SE

USF-014-SW

USF-015-SE

USF-017-SE

USF-018-SE

CM-037-SO CM-035-SO CM-020-SO CM-019-SO NR-004-SE

NR-011-SE

NR-001-SE NR-006-SE NR-012-SE NR-010-SE NR-002-SE NR-009-SE NR-008-SE Former Northern
Reservoir

Northwestern
Reservoir

Aeration Lagoon Reedy River Floodplain Dump Area

Sludge Burial Area Main Plant

Langston Creek Impoundment NR Northern Reservoir USF US Finishing
CM Cone Mills SW Surface water sample SE Sediment sample SO Soil sample

2005 MACTEC Site Assessment 2006 SCDHEC ESI Update
2004 SCDHEC ESI

Pump House 

### NR-003-SE

NR-005-SE NR-007-SE USF-001-SW/SE

CM-018-SO CM-006-SOUnited States Environmental Protection Agency



### US FINISHING / CONE M ILLS GREENVILLE, G R EE N VILLE COUNTY, SOUTH CAR OLI NA
EPA ID No. S CD003358744



## FIGURE 4
PROBABLE POINT OF ENTRY
LOCATION MAP 

# Legend

Scale (feet) 0 500 1,000 Surface water pathway Overland flow from Sources
Level II contamination Wetland perimeter for surface water pathway Probable Point of Entry (PPE) Current property feature outline



### Greenville County,
South Carolina

Former property feature outline

Sources: 1991 GeoTrans Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (Ref. 8); 2006 SCDHEC ESI Update (Ref. 9); 2004 SCDHEC ESI (Ref. 10); 2005 MACTEC Site Assessment (Ref . 41); 2010 Google Earth (Image City of Greenville GIS) (Ref. 71); 2011 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Wetlands Data for Google Earth (Ref. 72)

Northwestern
Reservoir

Aeration Lagoon

Reedy River Floodplain Dump Area Sludge Burial Area Main Plant

Langston Creek Impoundment Former
Northern
Reservoir PPE #1

PPE #2

PPE #3 PPE #4

PPE #5

PPE #6 Pump
House Wetland
Area Wetland
Area

Begin 15-mile Surface Water Target Distance Limit (TDL) Wetland
Area Former North ern Reservoir10 **REFERENCES**

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Hazard Ranking System, 40 CFR Part 300, Appendix A. December 14, 1990. 138 pages . A complete copy of the Hazard Ranking System can be obtained at the Regional docket upon
request.

2. EPA. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM) . January 2004. 52 pa ges. A complete copy of SCDM is available at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/tools/scdm.htm

.

3. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 7.5 minute series Topographic Quadrangl e Map of South Carolina: Greenville, 2006 ; Paris Mountain, 1983 . Scale 1: 24,000. 1 page.

4. Greenville County GIS . Property Search. Tax Map N umbers 0160000100201

, 0160000100202, 0160000100203, 0160000100101, 0160000100100, 0160000100102, 0157000200200, 0160000100106, 0160000100109, 0160000100105, 0160000100110,
and 0160000100200 . Accessed online at http:// www.gcgis.org

. January 18,
2011

. 15 pages

.

5. U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina, Greenville Divisio n.
Consent Decree. D epartment of H ealth and E nvironmental C ontrol (SCDHEC)
vs. American Fast Print Limited. Civil Action No. 6 : 04

- 23349

- 13. November 1, 2006. 35 pages.

6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Envirofacts Warehouse.

CERCLIS. Accesse d online at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/cerclis web.report?pgm_sys_id=SCD003358744 . September 17, 2008. 8 pages.

7. Douglas Fraley, Geographic Information Service (GIS) S pecialist, Environmental Scientist, Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START) Region IV, Oneida Total Integrated Enterprises (OTIE). Electronic mail (e

- mail) to Alexis McKinnon. Subject: GPS description for US Finishing. August 13, 2010. 1 page.

8. GeoTrans, Inc. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Remedial Investigation Report, Union Bleachery Site, Greenville, South Carolina

. July 25, 1991. 262 pages.

9. SCDHEC. Expanded Site Investigation (ESI) Update. Cone Mills (Old Union Bleachery) Site, EPA ID No. SCD 003 358 744. November 15, 2006. 1,104

pages.

10. SCDHEC. Expanded Site Inspection, Cone Mil ls (Old Union Bleachery) Site. December 20, 2004. 347 pages.

11. OTIE. Project Note to File. Subject: Expanded Site Investigation (ESI) Logbook not es for US Finishing. August 21, 2010. 108 pages.

12. Jonathan McInnis, Manager, SCDHEC Bureau of Land and Waste Management. E

mail to Alexis McKinnon, OTIE. Subject: Con e Mills/US Finishing Question. August 20, 2010. 1 page.

13. Fletcher Group, Inc., (FGI). Letter to Greg Cassidy, Bureau of Land and Waste Management, SCDHEC. Subject: US Finishing (Basement Remediation Report for the US Finishing Plant, Dated October 2005) . November 7, 2005.

19 pages.

14. SCDHEC. Memoranda from Mickey Corbett, Appalachia II Di strict, SCDHEC to Mike Marcus, Stream and Facility Monitoring Section, thru George Milam, Director, Appalachia II District, SCDHEC. Subject: Special Survey of Langston Creek, Greenville County. June 30, 1981. 12 pages.

15. Law Offices of Haynsworth, Berry, B ryant, Marion, & Johnson. Letter to W.T. Linton, Executive Director, South Carolina Board of Health, W ater11 P ollution C ontrol A uthority . Subject: Union Bleachery. January 27, 1956.

4 pages.

16. SCDHEC, Site Screening Section. Site Investigation, Cone Mills (Union Bleachery Plant), SCD003358744. June 29, 1993. 10 pages.

17. OTIE. Project Note to File. Subject: Deeds of Sale for the US Finishing /Cone Mills Property. July 8, 2010. 35 pages.

18. South Carolina State Board of Health, WPCA. Application for Permit to Construct, Sewage or Industrial Waste Treatment Plant s or Outfalls. Completed by Cone Mills Corporation for Union Bleachery. June 21, 1965. 1

page.

19. SCDHEC . Environmental Quality Control Incident Report, Incident No.
200304434. November 12 , 2003. 48 pages.

20. Alexis McKinnon, OTIE. Project Note to File. Subject: Tax and Parcel Information for Piper Properties of Greenville. August 27, 2010. 4

pages.

21. Jonathan McInnis, Manager, SCDHEC Bureau of Land and Waste Management. E

mail to Alexis McKinnon, S enior Project Scientist, Region IV START, OTIE. Subject: Cone Mills/US Finishing Question. August 19, 2010. 2 page s

.

22. Great Vista Chemicals. Dyes and Pigments. Accessed online at 

### http: //www.greatvistachemicals.com/dyes_and_pigments . Accessed July 14, 2010. 4

pages.

23. FGI. Letter to Keith Lindler, SCDHEC Bureau of Land and Waste Management. Subject: Soil and Sediment Remediation P rogress Report. February 3, 2005. 309 pages.

24. Cone Mills Corporation. Letter to Henry E. Gibson, SCDHEC. Subject: Dye Lagoon Leak. May 28, 1976. 3 pages.

25. Harper J. Elam III, Vice President & General Counsel, Cone Mills. Hazardous Waste Permit Application. November 17, 1980. 8 pages.

26. T.A. Alspaugh, Manager , Water and Air Resources, Cone Mills. Notification of Hazardous Waste Site, Cone Mills Corporation Union Bleachery Plant. June 5, 1981. 2 pages.

27. South Carolina State Board of Health, WPCA. Letter from Jo h nnie Smith, et al, WPCA

, to W.T. Linton, Execu tive Director, WPCA. Subject: Report of

C onditions in Reedy River in the V icinity of Greenville . September 14, 1964. 3 pages.

28. SCDHEC. Memoranda between Mike Marcus, Stream and Facility Monitoring
Section and Tom Porter, Appalachia II District. Subject: Special Survey of Langston Creek, Greenville County. May 1, 1981. 13 pages.

29. James Ferguson, Geologist, Ground

- W ater Protection Division, SCDHEC. Memorandum to George Milam, Director, Appalachia II District, SCDHEC. Subject: Union Bleachery (UB) Plant, Cone Mills Corp., Chromium Seepage into Langston Creek. November 19, 1981. 3 pages.

30. Law Engineering. Letter to Art Toompas, Cone Mills Corporation. Subject: Estimate of Chromium Quantity. August 2, 1982. 13 pages.

31. Law Engineering. Progress Report, Chromium Detection Exploration, Union Bleachery. July 15, 1982. 21 pages.

32. Arthur J. Toompas, Engineering Department, Cone Mills Corporation. Letter to Andy Yasinac, P.E, SCDHEC. Subject: Chr omium Problem, Langston Creek. September 24, 1982. 1 page.

33. Art hur J. Toompas, Engineering Department, Cone Mills Corporation. Letter to Andy Yasinac, P.E, SCDHEC. Subject: Chr omium Problem, Langston Creek. November 19, 1982. 1 page.12 34. Alexis McKinnon, OTIE. Project Note to File. Subject: Ground Water Monitoring Rep orts from U.S. Finishing to SCDHEC. August 27, 2010. 1,113

pages.

35. SCDHEC. Consent Order. Subject: Cone Mills Corporation, Union Bleachery, Greenville County. May 21 , 1984. 3 pages.

36. Leatherwood Walker Todd & Mann, P.C. Letter to SCDHEC. Subject: Unio n Bleachery, Greenville, South Carolina. March 24, 1993. 4 pages.

37. A quatic Analysts. Macroinvertebrate Assessment of Langston Creek at the US Finishing Plant, Greenville, South Carolina. October 1985. 18 pages.

38. Allison Ranson, Appalachia II, EQC, SCDH EC. Memorandum to John Cresswell, Site Screening Section, SCDHEC. Subject: Preliminary Assessment, Cone
Mills

- Union Bleachery Plant, SCD 003 358 744. December 17, 1985. 6

pages.

39. RMT, Inc. Soil Removal Report, Former Union Bleachery, Greenville, South Carolina. May 1995. 30 pages.

40. U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Chapter 11, Case No.

03

- 12944 (MFW). In re: Cone Mills Corporation, et al. Notice of Debtors’ Intent to Sell Certain Miscellaneous Assets Outside the Ordinary Course of

Bu siness. May 5 , 2004. 15 pages.

41. MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC). Site Assessment Report, Cone Mills Site. April 28, 2005. 126 pages.

42. Duke Energy Company. Cone Mills Site PCB Investigation. January 17, 2007. 314 pages.

43. Duke Energy Cor poration. Cone Mills Site PCB Soil Removal Final Report. September 13, 2007. 74 pages.

44. AECOM. Asbestos Inspection Report for Cone Mills / Old Union Bleachery Site. July 19, 2010. 87 pages.

45. Cone Mills Corporation. South Carolina Po llution Control Autho rity, Application for Permit to Construct Sewage or Industrial Waste Treatment Systems. December 5, 1974. 3 pages.

46. H.E. Lollis, SCDHEC

. Chief Engineer, Finishing Division, Cone Mills Corporation. Letter with Enclosure to Charles Kelly, Solid Waste

Mana gement Division, Subject: Sludge Burial Permit. February 7, 1975. 4

pages.

47. H.E. Lollis, Chief Engineer, Finishing Division, Cone Mills Corporation. Letter to Dunbar Delk, Industrial and Agricult u ral Division, Bureau of Wastewater and Stream Quality Cont rol, SCDHEC. Subject: Proposed Alterations to the Union Bleachery Pretreatment Facility. February 7, 1975. 4 pages.

48. Cone Mills Corporation. Letter to Charles Jeter, Chief, SCDHEC, Industrial and Agricultural Division. Subject: Leakage of Supernatant

f rom Sludge Settling Lagoon. May 9, 1975. 3 pages.

49. EPA. Environmental Investigations Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual. November 2001. 413 pages.

50. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Multi

- Media, Multi

Concentra tion, Inorganic Analytical Service for Superfund (ILM05.3). Quick Reference Fact Sheet, OSWER Document 9240.1

- 43FS. EPA Publication

540

- F

- 04

- 001. February 2004. 4 pages.

51. Reference reserved.

52. Doug las Fraley, GIS Specialist, OTIE. Project Note to File. S ubject: Historical Aerial Photographs Indicate Reedy River Floodplain Used as a Disposal Area. September 2, 2010. 5 pages

.13 53. Christopher Bartley, SCDHEC, Site Assessment Division. Sampling Plan, ESI, Cone Mills (Union Bleachery) Site. No Date. 31 Pages.

54. National Flood Insurance Program. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)

, Greenville South Carolina and Incorporated Areas. Panel 320 of 625.
December 2 , 2004

. 1 page.

55. National Weather Service Forecast O ffice. Greenville

- Spartanburg, SC. The Greenville, Sou th Carolina, Flash Flood of 29 July 2004. Accessed online at http://www.erh.noaa.gov/gsp/localdat/cases/2004/29July

ReedyFlood/29 . Accessed on January 18, 2011. 8 pages.

56. Peter W. Bednar, US Finishing. Facsimile with Enclosures to Greg Cassidy, Project Manager, Division of Site Assessment and Remediation , Bureau of Land and Waste Management, SCDHEC. Subject : Request for Approval of Proposed Changes to Drain System of N. Reservoir. August 24, 2006. 3

pages.

57. Kathy Webb, FGI . Letter to Greg Cassidy, Pro ject Manager, SCDHEC. Subject: Revised Northern Reservoir and Northwestern Reservoir Soil Assessment Work Plan. September 13, 2006. 7 pages.

58. John Chastain, FGI . Letter with Attachments to Butch Swygert, Bureau of Water, SCDHEC. Subject: Northern Reser voir. August 26, 2005. 5 pages.

59. Kathy Webb, PG, Project Manager, FGI . Letter with Attachments to Butch Swygert, Bureau of Water, SCDHEC, and Jason Gillespie, Program Administrator, Greenville County Soil and Water Conservation District. Subject: Norther n Reservoir. September 23, 2005. 5 pages.

60. Alexis McKinnon, OTIE. Project Note to File. Subject: Expanded Site Investigation (ESI) Addendum Logbook Notes for U.S. Finishing. August 21

, 2010. 68 pages

.

61. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Using Qualified Data
to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination

. EPA 540

- F

- 94

- 028. November 1996

. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/h rsres/fact/docoroc.pdf

. 18

pages.

62. Alexis McKinnon, OTIE. Project Note to File. Subject: Northern Reservoir (Source 3) Contaminated Soil Area Cal culations. January 27, 2011. 2

pages.

63. Alexis McKinnon, OTIE. Project Note to File. Subject: Distance t o PPE Calculations. January 27, 2011. 2 pages.

64. Alexis McKinnon, OTIE. Project Note to File. Subject: US Finishing/Cone Mills Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Wetland Frontage Determination. January 27, 2011. 7 pages.

65. Alexis McKinnon, OTIE. Project Note to File. Subject: Parks Along the
15

- Mile Target Distance Limit for US Finishing/Cone Mills

. September 16

, 2010. 7 pages

.

66. Watcher, editor. Kirk

- Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. Electronic version. Volumes 1, 4 and 8. Copyright 1991

- 1998. V olume 1,
excerpt, 9 pages; Volume 4, 580 pages; Volume 8, 560 pages.

67. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxic
Substances

– Chromium. Accessed via internet: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/toxsubstance.asp?toxid=17 . October 1, 2010. 2 pages.

68. EPA. EPA Ground Water Issue. EPA/540/5

- 94 /505. October 1994. 12 pages.

69. Environmental Data Resources (EDR), Inc. The EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheck, Co ne Mills. November 5, 2008. 129 pages.14 70. Alexis McKinnon, OTIE. Project Note to File. Subject: Reedy River Stream
Flow Data

. August 2 7 , 2010. 4 pages.

71. Alexis McKinnon, OTIE. Project Note to File. Subject: Source of Base Image for Figures 2, 3, and 4. 2010 Google Earth (Image City of Greenville GIS). February 4, 2011. 2 pages.

72. Alexis McKinnon, OTIE. Project Note to File. Subject: Source of Base Image for Figures 2, 3, and 4. 2011 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetlands Data through Google Earth. February 4, 2011. 20 pages.15 **HRS Site Description**

For HRS scoring purposes, the US Finishing/Cone Mills site consists of three

sources

. Source 1 is the aeration lagoon (surface impoundment), Source 2 is the Reedy River floodplain dump (landfill), and Source 3 is the former northern reservoir (contaminated soil). Level II concentrations of site

- related hazardous
substances have been documented in Langston Creek, which is a fishery, and in wetlands adjacent to Langston Creek (see Figure 4 of this HRS do cumentation record).

**General Facility Description** 

The former US Finishing/Cone Mills facility is located at 3335 Old Buncombe Road in Greenville, Greenville County, South Carolina (SC) (see Figure 1 of this HRS
d ocumentation r ecord) (Refs. 3; 4, p. 1 ; 5

, p. 3). The main portion of the facility is situated east of the Reedy River and west of Langston Creek

, approximately 3 miles north of downtown Greenville, Greenville County, South Carolina (Refs. 3; 4, pp. 1

- 15; 6 , pp. 1

- 8). The central portion of the f acility
is situated at 34o 52 ′ 59.852 ′′ North latitude and 82o 25′ 3 4.69 ′′ West longitude (Refs. 3; 7 ). The property on which the main facility is located is bordered to the east by Highway 253, to the west by a residential neighborhood originally

constructe d to house Union Bleachery employees and other residents, to the north by Old Buncombe Road, and to the sou th across the Reedy River, by a residential neighborhood ( Refs . 3 ; 4, pp. 1

- 8 , p. 14). Two reservoirs utilized by the facility during the operationa l period are located northeast of Buncombe Road (the former Northern Reservoir ) and northwest of the residential area (the
Northwestern Reservoir ) (Refs. 9 , p. 5; 4, pp. 1

- 5; 10 , pp. 5, 6, 23). The
former Northern Reservoir is bordered to the northwest an d southeast by residential property; to the northeast by woodlands and to the west by Old Buncombe Road (Ref s

. 4, pp. 1

- 5; 10 , pp. 7

- 8). Lakeview Middle School is directly across Old Buncombe Road from the former Northern Reservoir (Ref. 10 , p. 8). The to pography of the area is relatively flat with elevations of approximately 1,000 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The western portion of the
main facility property slopes towards the Reedy River; the eastern portion of the
main facility property, in the ar ea of the main plant, slopes towards Langston Creek; the area surrounding the a eration l agoon slopes towards both the Reedy River and Langston Creek (Refs. 3; 8, p. 16). The area of the former Northern Reservoir slopes towards Langston Creek; the area sur rounding the Northwestern Reservoir slopes towards the Reedy River (Ref. 3). The main facility property is fenced; however, the fence was previously not well maintained and evidence of unrestricted access has been observed (Refs. 9 , p. 3 ; 10 , p. 4; 11 , pp . 4, 61).

The main portion of the 259

- acre, L

- shaped facility property is comprised of three main buildings: the approximately 400,000 square feet (ft 2 ) industrial building that includes a basement and two floors partially destroyed by a 2003
fire; a wa rehouse, referred to as the Grey Warehouse; and the former ground water remediation plant (Refs. 8 , pp. 11, 14 ; 12 ). The facility property also contains 10 smaller, ancillary buildings, including a guard shack, pump house, and sheds (Refs. 8 , pp. 12 ; 12 ). Several surface water impoundments are located or
backfilled on the facility property, including an aeration lagoon, also referred to as the wastewater lagoon (Source No. 1); the backfilled Blue Pond, used for storage of both cloth rollers ( logs ) used i n the dye and finishing machinery and backwash water from the water treatment plant; a backfilled sludge settling lagoon, also referred to as the sludge burial area; a ground water wastewater treatment basin, used for containment by the ground water remedi ation plant before being moved to its current location , the remediation system, formerly operated by Cone Mills and housed in a fenced area on the eastern portion of the facility property; a water treatment plant used for the preparation of process
water b y the facility ; and a former brine pit , used for the storage of brine solution (Refs. 8, pp. 33

- 34; 10, p p

. 9, 10) . A dam on Langston Creek creates
the Lan g ston Creek impoundment, an outfall from the plant directs surface water runoff from the plant into the impoundment

. P rior to 1953, all non

- dye waste was discharged into the basement onto bare ground or into sumps which then migrated16 via a series of ditches to a main ditch that then flowed directly into Langston
Creek; this outfall was located upstream of an intake in the impoundment that
direct ed water to the former Northern Reservoir (Ref s . 8, p. 13; 11, pp. 8

- 9; 13

, pp. 5

- 6; 14 , p. 1; 15 , p. 1). Underground piping also connects the Langston Creek impoundment to the former Northern Reservoir and the a eration lagoon (Ref. 11, pp. 3, 9 ). A dump area (Source No. 2) is located in the Reedy River floodplain, south of the aeration lagoon (Ref. 10 , p. 5). The facility property also formerly housed seven caustic tanks with an estimated capacity of 10,000 gal lons each, a 13,500

- gallon chromium storage tank, and underground pipelines directing chromium to the storage tank and then delivering it to the facility (Refs. 8, pp. 54

- 56; 16 , p. 4). See Figure 2 of this HRS documentation record
for the facility proper ty layout and features

.

**General Operations**  **Description**

Constructed in 1903 as a textile bleaching and finishing facility, the plant was expanded on several occasions (Ref. 8 , p. 11). In 1947, the facility was sold to the Aspinook Corporation and, in 195 7, to the Cone Mills Corporation (Cone Mills) (Refs. 8 , pp. 11, 13; 10, p. 3; 17 , pp. 2

- 24). Cone Mills operated the plant until 1984 under the name Union Bleachery (Refs. 10, p. 3; 18 , p. 1 ). American Fast Print, Ltd. (AFP) purchased the facility in May 1984 and operated under the

name US Finishing until November 2003 when the main plant was partially destroyed by fire; AFP is the current property owner of a large portion of the facility (Refs. 8 , p. 13; 10, p. 2 ; 17 , pp. 24

- 35; 19 , pp. 1

- 2 ). In July 20 04, Piper Properties purchased approximately 19 acres along the Reedy River from Cone Mills (Ref s

. 5 , p. 4; 20 , pp. 1

- 4). The facility property is currently in temporary receivership; the receiver minimally maintains the property (Ref. 21 , p. 1).

Operati onal details from 1903 through 1957 are not available; however, there are many different types of textile dyeing and finishing processes (Ref. 22 , pp. 1

- 4). Detailed information regarding operations during the history of Cone Mills and later operations by US Finishing are detailed below.

During the operational history, the main production area was located on the first floor of the warehouse; the second floor contained the dye and chemical mixing areas and the inspection and grading areas for completed mat erial (Ref. 8 , p. 11). The basement

, designed for multiple uses, including spare parts storage and wastewater storage and conveyance, consisted of an eastern and a western side separated by a concrete trench (Refs. 8 , p. 11 ; 13 , p. 6 ). Chemicals were sto red in the basement until a flood in 1974 inundated the basement and flooded many of the chemical storage areas (Ref. 8 , p. 14). The eastern half of the basement had
a concrete floor and 6

- foot ceilings (Ref. 13 , p. 6 ). A small area on the
northeast side of the basement was used as an extension of the maintenance department and for spare parts storage, the southeast corner housed caustic transfer pumps, and the remainder of the eastern half was an open corridor running the length of the building (Ref. 13

, p. 6 ). The western half of the basement contained a wastewater conveyance system that included the dye range sump (dye sump), piping, and a few smaller trenches leading to the main wastewater trench running the length of the center of the building (Ref. 1 3 , p. 6 ). The main trench routed wastewater through the plant, north to south, toward the underground piping and pumps for ultimate discharge into the wastewater treatment lagoon (Ref

. 13 , pp. 6, 13 ). The 1968 Basement Plan map depicted the

wastewater tr ench routed to a “ditch to creek” south of the plant (Ref

. 13 , pp. 6, 13 ).

Seven 10,000

- gallon caustic tanks, used for sodium hydroxide, were formerly
located on the facility property in a 75

- foot by 100

- foot area south of the main plant (Ref. 16 , p. 4). A 13,500

- gallon chromium storage tank and delivery system was used to pump and store sodium dichromate from railroad tanker cars and distribute the chromium to the main plant (Ref. 8 , pp. 54

- 56). The chromium supply lines ran in a northeasterly direction from the chromium fill area located adjacent to the railroad tracks, continued through a warehouse where the pump was located, exited the warehouse and continued a short distance to the chromium tank17 (Ref. 8 , pp. 54

- 56). The chromium distribution lines c ontinued in a northeasterly direction from the chromium tank, where chromium flowed by gravity to the main plant via 2

- inch underground pipes (Ref. 8 , pp. 54

- 56).

A brine pit, for the storage of a brine solution used in plant processes, was
located on the southwest side of the facility, near one of the storage warehouses (Ref. 10 , p. 10). The brine pit was a concrete basin measuring 32 by 12 feet and was covered during its use (Ref. 10 , p. 10). Following the 2003 fire, the brine pit was pumped out and th e contents transported off the facility property for use by another manufacturer (Ref. 10 , p. 10). The brine pit was demolished in 2005 (Ref. 23 , p. 3).

The water treatment plant was used for the preparation of process water for use by the facility (Re f. 10 , p. 6). Historically, filter waste from the water treatment plant was given to mill village residents for use in their gardens (Refs. 10 , p. 6; 11 , p. 9). The water for the water treatment plant was drawn
from the northern and Northwestern Reservoi r s (Ref. 10 , p. 6). Prior to building
the former Northern Reservoir , raw water was pumped in emergencies from a pumping station on the Reedy River and directed to a raw water lagoon (Ref. 24 , p. 1).

Until the late 1960s, the Reedy River floodplain dump w as used as an open dump for solid waste disposal (Refs. 8, pp. 49; 16, p. 5; 52, pp. 1

- 5). Wastes deposited in the Reedy River floodplain dump included coal ash from the boiler operations, construction debris, asbestos tiles, general paper waste from the offices and production floor waste. Also deposited was the dye sludge that was removed from beneath the dye ranges in the basement during the annual July 4 th shutdown (Ref. 8, p. 49). Local residents also used this area as a waste dump for general househ old trash (Ref. 8, p. 49). Coal, roofing material, and orange silt was observed during the 1991 RI/FS performed by GeoTrans for AFP (Ref. 8, p. 53).

**Investigations and Regulatory History**

On November 17, 1980, Cone Mills submitted a Hazardous Permit Ap plication, Part A (Ref. 25 , pp. 1

- 8). Cone Mills submitted a Notification of Hazardous Waste Site to EPA Region 4 for the Union Bleachery plant in 1981 (Ref. 26 , p. 1).

On June 30, 1981, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control ( SCD HEC ) issued a Memorandum documenting the Special Survey as conducted by the Greenville Monitoring Section on May 2 through 13, 1981 (Ref s. 14, p. 1; 27 , p. 1; 28, pp. 1

- 3 ). The survey area consisted of Langston Creek upstream of the facility to just downs tream of the confluence of Langston Creek and the Reedy River (Ref. 28 , pp. 1, 3). The impoundment and Langston Creek downstream of the pool were tinted yellow

- green (Ref. 14 , p. 1). Chromium concentrations in surface water and sediment at the pool and d ownstream ranged from 2,100 micrograms per liter ( μg/ L ) to 4,400 μg/ L and 1,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) to 60 mg/kg, respectively. Upstream surface water and sediment
concentrations were less than 50 μg/ L and 12 to 22 mg/kg, respectively (Ref. 14

, pp. 3

- 6; 8 , p. 19). SCDHEC officials concluded that the point of discharge for the chromium was below the Langston Creek impoundment on the east side of the facility property (Ref. 29 , p. 3 ).

Cone Mills retained Law Engineering Testing Company (Law) to determine the source of chromium contamination in Langston Creek resulting from the SCDHEC directive (Refs. 8 , p. 22; 31 , pp. 1

- 2). Law performed a resistivity study in the Langston Creek floodplain and initially installed 10 monitoring wells, followed b y an eleventh well, to identify lateral extent of chromium in the upper aquifer (Ref.

8 , pp. 22

- 23). Resistivity surveys performed on the west side of Langston Creek indicated an area of high electrical conductivity indicating potential ground

water conta mination near the dam and the caustic storage tanks (Ref. 31 , p. 2). A shallow ground water system feeding Langston Creek was indicated by the wells (Ref. 31 , p. 3). Chromium was detected in four wells (Well Number 2, 3, 9, and18 10) at average concentrati ons of 266, 0.23, 1,678, and 188 milligrams per liter ( mg/L ) , respectively (Ref. 31 , p. 3). Soil samples collected from Well Number 2
indic a ted chromium concentrations increasing with depth to the weathered rock (Ref. 31 , p. 3). The preliminary conclusio ns of the Progress Report indicated that the source of chromium contamination in the ground water was a break in the line between the old chromium storage tank and the dyeing area, with the exact source unknown (Ref. 31 , p. 3). On August 2, 1982, Law submi tted a letter estimating the quantity of chromium in the ground water to be between 3,000 and 18,000 pounds (Ref. 30 , pp. 1

- 13).

Cone Mills installed and operated a ground water recovery and remediation facility on the property in 1982 to address chromium contamination adjacent to Langston Creek (Refs. 8 , p. 25 ; 32 ; 33 ). Contaminated ground water was pumped
from well W

- 9 and then precipitated from the ground water (Ref. 8 , p. 25). Monthly reports of well analyses, Langston Creek water quality, and chromi um remediation activities were submitted to SCDHEC (Refs. 8 , p. 25; 34 , pp. 1

- 1113).

In May 1984, Cone Mills entered into a Consent Order (CO) with the SCDHEC and AFP (Ref. 35 , pp. 1

- 3). The CO stated that sampling by SCDHEC in nearby Langston
Creek in 1 980 and 1981 exhibited excessive levels of chromium and a ground water study commissioned by Cone Mills found chromium contamination in ground water beneath the Cone Mills facility property at levels exceeding SC State Water Quality Standards (Ref. 35 , p. 1). The CO further outlined that Cone Mills continue to recover and treat the contaminated ground water, despit e the sale of the property (Ref

. 35 , pp. 1

- 2).

A macroinvertebrate assessment was conducted in Langston Creek for Cone Mills by Aquatics Anal ysts in 1985 (Ref. 8, p. 20; 37 , p. 6 ). Decreases in both taxa and specimens were described as a generally characteristic response to toxic materials (Ref. 37 , p. 16 ). Further study was recommended to determine the source of the toxicity (Ref. 37 , p. 16)

.

Cone Mills and US Finishing conducted chromium analysis on fish tissue and organs on October 9, 1985, and March 21, 1989, respectively (Ref. 36 , p. 1). Bream and Hornyhead fish collected and analyzed by Cone Mills in 1985 revealed chromium

concentrat ions betwee n 3.77 and 8.97 micrograms per gram ( μ g/g) in the organs and

18.16 to 29.5 μ g/g in the intestines (Ref s

. 8 , p. 20 ; 36 , p. 3 ).

On December 17, 1985, SCDHEC completed a Preliminary Assessment (PA) for the Cone Mills Union Bleachery Plant (Ref

. 38 , pp. 1

- 6). Chromium at concentrations of up to 1,450 mg/L was cited in the PA (Ref. 38 , p. 3). The PA stated that chromium was observed in the ground water and Langston Creek since 1980; a sample collected on July 23, 1980, contained chromium at a c oncentration of 10,400 mg/L in Langston Creek, which exceeded the EPA water quality criteria of 100 mg/L for freshwater aquatic life (Ref. 38 , p p . 4 , 5 ).

From 1987 through 1990, Rogers and Callcott, Engineers, Inc. (R&C), joined by GeoTrans, Inc., (GeoTra ns) in 1989, conducted a Preliminary Investigation on behalf of AFP (Ref. 8 , p. 10). The information collected during the Preliminary Investigation was included in the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) completed by GeoTrans in 1991 (Ref. 8

, p. 10).

GeoTrans completed the Remedial Investigation (RI) on behalf of AFP from August 1990 to June 1991 (Ref. 8 , p. 10). GeoTrans submitted the RI/FS report on July 25, 1991 (Ref. 8 , p. 1). The objectives of the RI were to determine the nature
and extent of contamination and to identify areas representing sources of contamination (Ref. 8 , p. 10). Actions taken during the RI phase included the installation of monitoring wells and soil borings, the collection of sludge, surface soil, split

- spoon, and ground water samples, and the performance of a Rapid Bioassessment (Ref. 8 , p. 10). Sampling and assessment activities were conducted throughout the study area, including the former sludge settling impoundment, the aeration lagoon, the Reedy River floodp lain dump, the basement of the main plant, the area of the chromium tank and the chromium supply and19 delivery pipelines, the fuel tank and line, the caustic plume, Blue Pond, and the Langston Creek aquifer (Ref. 8 , pp. 60

- 94). Soil samples collected benea th the former chromium supply and delivery lines indicated the presence of total chromium at concentrations up to 6,900 mg/kg (Ref. 8 , p. 72). Four soil boring samples collected from the former sludge settling impoundment revealed the presence of chromium at concentrations ranging from 13,780 to 36,000 mg/kg (Ref.

8 , pp. 95

- 96). Other constituents detected in the sludge settling impoundment included arsenic, barium, cadmium, lead, mercury, and selenium (Ref. 8 , pp. 95

- 96). Analytes detected in soil sampl es collected from the aeration lagoon included arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, magnesium, manganese, and zinc (Ref. 8 , pp. 102, 213). Unfiltered ground water results, when compared to an unfiltered background, revealed elevated concentra tions of arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and selenium at areas throughout the facility (Ref. 8 , pp. 59, 99

- 101, 104

- 124). Other constituents detected included: hexavalent chromium; 1,1

- dichloroethane; chloroform; toluene; ethylbenzene ; xylenes; 1,2

- dichlorobenzene (Ref. 8 , pp. 114

- 124).

In June 1993, the SCDHEC Site Screening Section completed a Site Investigation for Cone Mills (Union Bleachery Plant) (Ref. 16 , pp. 1

- 10). Extensive data was provided by contractors for Cone Mills an d AFP; therefore, no samples were collected during the Site Investigation (Ref. 16 , p. 8). Source areas containing
elevated concentrations of chromium were identified at the facility

. Additionally, chromium contamination in ground water, surface water, a nd fish tissues downgradient of the facility property was identified (Ref. 16 , pp. 3

- 5, 8). Based on the levels of chromium documented on the facility property and in the ground water, a medium priority for further action under the Federal Superfund progr am was assigned; a delay in Federal Superfund activities was recommended in the event that remediation was completed by responsible parties according to the National Contingency Plan (NCP) (Ref. 16 , p. 8).

Soil removal activities were conducted at the fa cility from July 1994 through March 1995 by RMT on behalf of Cone Mills as part of a 1993 Settlement Agreement (Ref. 39 , pp. 1, 4, 6). Soil removal activities excavated approximately 3,636
tons of total petroleum hydrocarbon ( TPH ) affected soil, 6,958 ton s of chromium affected soil, and 3,145 tons of caustic affected soil from the facility (Ref.
39 , pp. 15

- 16).

A fire in November 2003 destroyed much of the main facility (Ref. 19 , pp. 1

- 2). Fifteen to 25 million plus gallons of fire suppression water con taining unknown constituents from the facility released to Langston Creek and the Reedy River (Refs. 10 , p. 6; 19 , p. 2).

Due to an impending bankruptcy, Cone Mills removed the ground water recovery and treatment system from operation on June 18, 2004, a fter 20 years of operation (Refs. 10 , p. 3; 40 , pp. 1

- 2). The system of recovery wells and treatment was in place to prevent the chromium

- contaminated ground water plume from entering Langston Creek and the Reedy River (Ref. 10 , p. 3). At the time the re covery system was shut down, chromium levels in the ground water beneath the Langston Creek floodplain was as high as 81 parts per million (ppm) (Ref. 10 , p. 3).

In 2004, SCDHEC completed an Expanded Site Inspection (ESI) for the Cone Mills (Old Union Ble achery) facility (Ref. 10 , pp. 3

- 4). The scope of the investigation included a review of available file information, a site reconnaissance, and sampling of surface water, sediments, ground water, soils and potential source areas (Ref. 10 , pp. 3

- 4). The s ite reconnaissance was conducted in June and July 2004; sampling activities wer e completed in August 2004 (Ref

. 10 , p. 3). The primary objective of the ESI was to characterize waste sources and determine any impact to nearby surface water (Ref. 10 , p. 3). A total of 15 surface water samples, 16 sediment samples, 5 ground water samples, and 17 soil samples were collected during the ESI (Ref. 10 , pp. 31

- 46). M etals and PCBs were detected in the soils and sediments (Ref. 10 , pp. 4, 48

- 313). B arium, chromiu m, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, and vanadium were detected in ground water samples collected downgradient of the Langston Creek floodplain and the sludge20 settling basin (Ref. 10 , pp. 6

- 7, 48

- 313). Based on the findings of the ESI, the facility was gi ven a high priority for further action (Ref. 10 , pp. 4, 18). Surface water and source data from the ESI will be further discussed in later
sections of this HRS documentation record

.

Removal activities were performed at the facility between October and December 2004, as documented in a letter dated February 3, 2005 to SCDHEC from Fletcher Group, Inc. (FGI) (Ref. 23 , p. 1). Removal included the area of soil contamination near the southwest corner of the main plant building, sediment from
the maintenance shop drain, contaminated soil near the elevated railroad bed, and contaminated soil near the oil pump house (Ref. 23 , pp. 2

- 4). In addition, the contents from both the brine pit and the former ground water treatment plant basin were removed, then the brin e pit and the ground water treatment plant basin were pressure washed and demolished (Ref. 23 , pp. 3

- 6). Although removal activities were conducted at the plant, confirmation samples from the areas of
soil contamination near the southwest corner of the ma in plant building, the elevated railroad bed, and the oil pump house indicated that contamination remained in place (Ref. 23 , pp. 3

- 5). To a large extent, soil contamination is adjacent to facility structures and further excavation could not be completed without potentially impacting the structures (Ref. 23 , pp. 3

- 5). The FGI letter states that, “As demolition of the existing structures and redevelopment of the property occurs, US Finishing recognizes that additional soil assessment and/or
remediation wil l need to be addressed” (Ref. 23 , p. 5). Areas not addressed during the soil and sediment removal activities include the aeration lagoon, the
former Northern Reservoir , former sludge settling impoundment (sludge burial area), ground water remediation syst em treatment plant property, Reedy River floodplain dump area, area of exposed soil, and the area adjacent to the substation property leased by Duke Energy (Ref. 23 , p. 7 ).

In April 2005, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting (MACTEC) conducted site

assessm ent activities on behalf of the SCDHEC to further evaluate the potential threat to human health and the environment (Ref. 41

, p p. 5, 6). A total of 12 surface water samples were collected, eight from Langston Creek and four from the
former Northern Reserv oir ; 12 sediment samples were collected from the former
Northern Reservoir ; five ground water samples were collected from existing monitoring wells located on the facility property; and three fish tissue samples composited from 15 bass and blue gill fish c aptured from the former Northern
Reservoir (Ref. 41 , pp. 9

- 10). Samples were collected in February 2005 (Ref. 41

, pp. 7, 43, 61, 79, 84). Hexavalent chromium was detected in ground water samples at concentrations ranging from 4,100 μg/ L to 100,000 μg/ L ( Ref. 41 , pp. 15

- 16, 24).

In June 2005, SCDHEC conducted an ESI Update sampling event to evaluate background samples in Langston Creek upgradient of all identified site influences, investigate potential impacts to wetlands, and to collect a background su rface water and sediment sample from a nearby large reservoir used
in a manner similar to the former Northern Reservoir (Ref. 9 , p. 4). A total of 15 surface water and sediment samples were collected from Langston Creek and its tributaries during this inv estigation, as well as three wetland sediment samples (Ref. 9 , p p . 12 , 16 ). In general, elevated constituents were detected in Langston Creek, the drainage pathway from the former Northern Reservoir , and wetlands adjacent to Langston Creek (Ref. 9 , pp. 12

- 17). The data from these sampling events are discussed in the Surface Water Migration Section of this HRS
documentation record

.

In October 2005, FGI submitted a Basement Remediation Report on behalf of AFP documenting the removal of basement residues fr om 1993 through June 1999 by AFP contractors and personnel (Ref. 13 , pp. 5 , 6 ). During that time, FGI conducted confirmation sampling for the basement sludge removal (Ref. 13 , p. 10 ). Sludge removal was achieved through a combination of shoveling, sweepi ng and/or washing (Ref. 13

, p p. 7, 12 ). Post

- removal, c oncentrations of chromium exceeded the lead cleanup goal of 400 ppm in four samples; chromium concentrations in two of the four samples exceeded 1,000 ppm. Therefore, AFP subsequently power

- washed th ose21 areas to remove the remaining chromium contamination (Ref. 13

, pp. 1 1

- 1 2 ). The soil beneath the basement was not removed during the cleanup and removal of the basement sludge, with the exception of “Area 3” which had soil removed to a maximum depth of 1.5 feet (Ref. 13 , pp. 6

, 10 ).

AFP, Duke Energy Corporation, and Piper Properties of Greenville, Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) (Piper Properties), (the Settling Parties), entered into a settlement agreement with SCDHEC as documented by a Consent Decree presented to the Court in November 2006 (Ref. 5 , p. 3). The Consent Decree stated that textile operations by some of the owners/operators significantly contaminated the property and the surrounding areas with hazardous substances as defined by CERC LA (Ref. 5 , p. 5). Duke Energy owned and operated several transformers at the facility and leased a portion of the property for many years to operate an electrical substation; AFP also operated several transformers at various locations on the property (Re f. 5 , p. 5). Duke Energy agreed to assess, remove, and properly dispose of any and all polychlorinated biphenyls ( PCBs ) on the property (Ref. 5 , p. 13). The Settling Parties agreed to assume all future obligations for remedial action, including the compl etion of the remedial investigation (RI), feasibility study (FS), and performance of the remedy to be selected by SCDHEC at the property, consistent with the technical intent of the NCP (Ref. 5 , p. 14). SCDHEC agreed to consider interim remedial or remova l actions where appropriate, which AFP and Piper Properties agreed to implement (Ref. 5 , p. 17). As long as the Settling Parties remained in agreement with the Consent Decree, SCDHEC agreed to notify EPA that removal or remedial action was unnecessary (Re f. 5 , p. 23).

Duke Energy conducted an investigation to delineate the extent of PCB contamination in the vicinity of the substation, near the oil pump house, coal storage area, and former and current pole mounted transformers (Ref. 42 , p. 4). The scope of the investigation was limited to PCBs (Ref. 42 , p. 4). PCBs were detected in the soils above the cleanup standard in each of the areas investigated. PCB contamination in the areas of the substation, the oil pump house, and the coal storage area was exte nsive (Ref. 42 , p. 17). The area of contamination was limited in the pole transformer area and the former Northern
Reservoir (Ref. 42 , p. 17). Following the delineation of the extent of PCB contamination in those areas of the facility, Duke Energy submit ted a Soil Removal Plan dated January 31, 2007 (Ref. 43 , p. 4). The plan was approved by SCDHEC on May 7 , 2007 (Ref. 43 , p. 4). PCB

- contaminated s oil was removed, and confirmation samples collected, from all areas previously identified (Ref. 43

, pp. 6

- 16 ). C lean fill was brought in to backfill the removal areas (Ref. 43 , p. 16).

Neither AFP nor Piper Properties followed the RI/FS schedule as outlined in the Consent Decree; therefore, in May 2008, as a result of AFPs failure to pay its
consultants and complete the sampling effort as approved in the Updated RI/FS work plan, SCDHEC petitioned the court to appoint a temporary receiver for property owned by AFP (Ref. 21 , pp. 1

- 2). Piper also failed to submit an RI Report, and SCDHEC petitioned the court t o appoint a temporary receiver in April 2009 (Ref. 21 , pp. 1

- 2). For both parties, the receiver’s primary responsibilities have been to manage and sell assets on behalf of creditors and to raise revenue to pay property taxes and minimally maintain the pro perty (repair downed fencing, secure gates with locks, cut grass, etc.). The receiver
has retained the services of a real estate broker to market the various AFP and Piper parcels (Ref. 21 , pp. 1

- 2).Source No. 1

Source Characterization

22 **2.2 SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION**

**2.2.1 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION** 

Name o f the source : Aeration Lagoon Number of the source : 1

HRS Source Type : S urface impoundment

Description of the Source : The aeration lagoon (also called the dye lagoon, wastewater lagoon, pretreatment lagoon, and later the aeration/equalization b asin) was built in 1965 to contain wastewater prior to discharging to the Greenville Sewer system (Refs. 8, p. 36;
16 , p. 3; 18 , p. 1; 24 , pp. 1

- 2; 45 , pp. 1

- 2 ). According to the permit, the aeration lagoon was built as a holding lagoon designed to equali ze waste composition and flow. Maximum flow from the aeration lagoon was 2,500,000 gallons per day ( gpd ) of discharge to the Greater Greenville Sewer System (Ref. 18 , p. 1). Fourteen aerators and lint screens were installed to allow for extended aeration and biological treatment in 1970 (Ref. 45 , p. 2). In 1975, Cone Mills dredged and expanded the aeration lagoon, increasing the holding capacity by 4 million gallons

, for a total capacity of 8.5 million gallons (Ref s

. 45 , pp. 1

- 2 ; 46, pp. 1, 3 ; 47, p. 2

- 4 ) . The dike was constructed of compacted clay, with riprap along two sides of the lagoon potentially exposed to flood water (Ref. 45 , p. 2). The aeration lagoon is not lined, as water from the aeration lagoon is reportedly a source of ground water recharg e (Ref. 8 , p. 129). During the 2004 ESI, evidence of repeated overflow of the aeration lagoon was observed and documented (Ref. 10, p. 9). Overflow from the aeration lagoon flows overland either in a southeasterly direction to Langston Creek or southwest erly towards the Reedy River (Refs

. 3; 8, p. 16).

Wastewater placed into the aeration lagoon included spent liquor from the boil

- out machines, the continuous bleaching machines, and the mercertizers; wastewater from the basement; and accumulated dye sludg e cleaned out during the July 4 th plant shutdowns (Refs. 8, pp. 14, 38; 9, pp. 181

- 184; 45 , p. 2). Although chromium use at the facility ended in 1975, chromium

- containing waste continued to enter the lagoon via stormwater, as that waste remained on the f acility (Refs. 8, p. 38; 16

, p. 3). On at least two occasions, ground water from chromium

- contaminated wells

W

- 2 or W

- 10 was pumped directly into the aeration lagoon (Ref. 8 , p. 38). The aeration lagoon continued to be used to treat surface water runoff from the facility property prior to discharge into the Western Carolina Regional Sewer Authority (Refs. 10 , p. 9; 23 , p. 6). T he property is currently in receivership
and the aeration lagoon is no longer in operation (Ref. 21 , p. 1).

On May 9, 1975, a l eak from the aeration lagoon occurred. The aeration lagoon had been drained, dredged, and expanded

, and Cone Mills was in the process of transferring the supernatant back to the aeration lagoon from the temporary sludge settling lagoon (Ref. 48 , p. 2). W ater from the aeration lagoon leaked into the Reedy River (Ref. 48 , p. 2). No estimates were provided of the amount of leaked supernatant, which was a light grey/green color with a pH of 10 (Ref. 48 , p. 2). In 1976, water from the aeration lagoon again f lowed into the Reedy River, through an abandoned, but un capped, 16

- inch pipeline (Ref. 24 , pp. 1

- 2). Cone Mills speculated that the extra

- weight of the water as a result of the lagoon expansion caused the leakage of water into the underground base beneath the lagoon and then into the abandoned pipeline (Ref. 24 , p. 2). During the 2004 ESI, evidence of repeated overflow was noted based on the presence of stained soils on the dam of the lagoon (Ref. 10 , p. 9). Dried material was also observed on the fencing and wire around the dam (Ref. 10 , p. 9).

Sludge samples were collected during multiple sampling events. Sludge samples collected in 1988, 1989, and 1990 indic a ted chromium concentrations at a range of

190 to 3,200 mg/kg (Ref. 8 , p. 102). Arsenic, barium , cadmium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, silver and zinc were also detected during one or more of these sampling events (Ref. 8 , p. 102 ). A composite sample from the aerationSource No. 1

Source Characterization
23 lagoon was collected during the 1991 RI/FS (Ref. 8 , p. 102 ). Arsenic w as detected at a concentration of 6.7 mg/kg; chromium was detected in the sludge at a concentration of 398 mg/kg (Ref. 8, p. 102 ) . Samples collected during the 2004 ESI indicated the continued presence of contaminated soil along the banks of the lagoon and sediment within the lagoon (Ref. 10 , p. 9).

Location of the source, with reference to a map of the facility : The aeration lagoon is located southwest of the main facility and northeast of the railroad tracks (Ref. 8 , p. 61). See Figure 2 of this HRS d o cumentation r ecord for
the location of the source

.

**2.2.2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOURCE**

**- 2004 ESI** 

The f ollowing sample s w ere collected during the 2004 ESI conducted by SCDHEC . The samples were black, sandy sludge within the aeratio n lagoon (CM

- 019

- SO) and black, silty soil along the dam of the aeration pond

, in a n area stained from repeated
overflow (CM

- 020

- SO ) (Ref s

. 10 , p . 9; 9 , p. 547; 11 , pp. 81

- 82 ). All samples were
collected in accordance with the SCDHEC Bureau of Land and Wa ste Management
Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) and the USEPA Region 4, Science and Ecosystem Support System (SESD) Environmental Investigations Standard O perating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual (EISOPQAM) (Ref

. 9 , pp. 524, 544 ; 49 )

. Samples w ere submitted to ChemT ech Consulting Group, an EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) laboratory, for analysis of EPA Target Compound List (TCL) and Target Analyte List (TAL) parameters (Ref. 10 , pp. 31, 212

- 213 ). Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/Q C) information for these samples is located in Reference 10

, pp. 314

- 328

. See Figure 3 this HRS d ocumentation r ecord for sample locations.

**Sample**

**ID Sample Type**  **Date Hazardous** 

**Substance Hazardous** 

**Substance**
**Concentration (mg/kg)**  **Contract Required** 
**Q uantitation**  **Limit (CRQL) (mg/kg)**  **References**

CM

019

- SO Soil 8/17/2004 Chromium 7.6 1 9, pp. 547, 718;
10 , pp. 31, 212;
50 , p. 2 Copper 6.1 2.5

Lead 5.8 1

Manganese 15 1.5

CM

020

- SO Soil 8/17/2004 Arsenic 1.8 1 9, pp. 547, 719 ; 10

, pp. 31, 213 ; 50 , p. 2 Cadmium 1.3 0.5

Chromium 330 1

Copper 330 2.5

Lead 38 1

Manganese 400 1.5

Total
Mercury 0.56 0.1

Zinc 420 6

Notes:

CM

- Cone Mills

SO

- Soil sample

m g/kg

- Mi lli grams per kilogramSource No. 1

Source Characterization

24 List of Hazardous Substances Associated with Source 1:
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese Total Mercury

Z inc

**2.2.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AVAILABLE TO A PATHWAY**

**Containment Description Containment** 

**Factor Value Ref.** 

Release via overland migration and/or flood:
Source 1 has no liner. There is no maintained engineered cover or functioning and maintained

run

- on control system and runoff management
system. The aeration lagoon spilled and, via overland flow, entered into the Re edy River
duri ng the 1975 spill. During the 1976 leak, the aeration lagoon leaked directly into the Reedy
River via the 16

- inch pipe and into an area beneath the lagoon. The stained soil and presence of dried material along the fence and
wire on the dam indicated mult iple overflow

events

. 10 1, Section

4 .1.2.1

. 2.1.1

, Table 4

- 2; 10, p. 9;

24 , pp. 1

- 2; 48

, p p

. 1, 2Source No. 1

Source Characterization
25 **2.4.2 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY**

**2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity**

Insufficient data is available to evaluate the hazardous constituent qua ntity.

Hazardou s Constituent Quantity Value : Not Scored (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.1)

**2.4.2.1.2 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity**

Insufficient data is available to evaluate the hazardous wastestream quantity.

Hazardou s Wastestream Quantity Value : Not Score d (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.2)

**2.4.2.1.3 Volume Description**  The aeration lagoon at the facility was originally built in 1965 and was subsequently modified to hold a capacity of between 8.5 and 9.37 million gallons (Refs. 8, pp. 215 ; 45, pp. 1

- 3; 46, pp. 1

- 3; 47, pp. 1

- 4)

. According to the 1975 Permit to Construct Application, Cone requested increasing the size of the existing 4.5 million gallon lagoon by 4 million gallons (Ref. 47, pp. 2

- 4). During the 1991 Remedial Investigation by GeoTrans on behalf of AFP

, the aeration lagoon had a calculated volume of 9.37 million g allons (Ref. 8 , p. 215 ). As the available file material differs as to the exact size, the smaller size will be
used for the volume calculations.

**Source Type Description**  **(# drums or di mensions)**  **Units (yd**  **3 /gal)**  **References**

Surface Impoundment 8.5 million gallons 0. 005 yd 3

/ 1 gallon * =

42,500 yd 3 1, p. 51591; 8

, p. 215 ; 45, pp.

1 , 2 ; 46, pp.

1

, 3; 47, pp.

2

- 4

* Ref. 1, p. 51591: 1 cubic yard = 200 gallons; 0.005 cubic yard / gallo n
Sum: 42,500 yd 3 Equation for Assigning Value (Ref. 1, Table 2

- 5): 42,500 yd 3 ÷ 2. 5
Volume Assigned Value : 17,000 Reference 1, Section 2.4.2.1.3, Table 2

- 5

**2.4.2.1.4 Area**
The area of contamination was not calculated.

Area Assigned Value: 0 (Ref. 1, Sect ion 2.4.2.1.4)

**2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value**

Highest assigned value assigned from Ref. 1, Table 2

- 5 : 17,000Source No. 2

Source Characterization
26 **2.2.1 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION**

Name of the source : Reedy River Floodplain Dump Number of the source : 2

HRS Source Type : La ndfill

Description of the Source: Until the late 1960s, the Reedy River floodplain dump was used as an open dump for solid waste disposal (Refs. 8, pp. 49; 16 , p. 5 ; 52 , pp. 1

- 5 ). Wastes deposited in the Reedy River floodplain dump included coal ash from the boiler operations, construction debris, asbestos tiles, general paper waste from the offices and production floor waste. Also deposited was the dye sludge that was removed from beneath the dye ranges in the basement during the annual July 4 th shutdow n (Ref. 8

, p. 49). Local residents also used this area as a waste dump for general household trash (Ref. 8 , p. 49). Coal, roofing material, and orange silt was observed during the 1991 RI/FS performed by GeoTrans for AFP (Ref. 8 , p. 53).

During the 197 5 dredging and expansion of the aeration lagoon, 1,000,000 gallons of dredged material as a water/sludge combination was pumped into the sludge settling impoundment, according to the permit. After settling, the supernatant was siphoned off and transferred back to the newly expanded aeration lagoon (Refs.

45 , pp. 1

- 3; 48 , p. 1; 53 , p. 5). During the transfer of the supernatant, a spill occurred when the freshly tamped earth washed away from the pipes (Ref. 48 , p. 1). The supernatant washed over a 3

- acre fi eld between the sludge basin and the Reedy River, also known as the Reedy River floodplain (Ref. 48 , p. 2). An estimate of the amount of material leaked was not provided, but was described as a light grey/green color and a pH of 10 (Ref. 48 , p. 2).

From June 1989 to February 1990, contractors for AFP performed trenching and analysis of the Reedy River floodplain dump area (Ref. 8 , pp. 51

- 53). Two trenches were completed in June 1989 approximately 200 feet northwest of the Reedy River pump house. Trench 2 was located 850 feet upstream from Trench 1. Coal, soils, roofing material, water and orange silt were observed in Trench 1. Disposed materials were observed on the surface of the Reedy River floodplain dump (Ref. 8 , pp. 52

- 53). Chromium was detected at a level of 456 mg/kg in Trench 1 (Ref. 8 , p. 53). Arsenic, lead, and zinc were detected at elevated concentrations during the 1991 RI/FS when compared to the samples collected along the Reedy River floodplain, upgradient of the facility (Ref. 8, pp. 53

- 54; 16 , p. 5)

. A surface water sample collected upgradient of Trench 2 during the February event indicated mercury at a concentration of 3.3 μg/ L (Ref. 8 , p. 54)

. Two additional trenches (Trenches 5 and 6) were completed in February 1990 (Ref. 8 , pp. 51

- 53). Grab samples of the water in the trenches indicated levels of 0.35 to 0.06 mg/L for chromium and 0.08 to 0.09 mg/L for mercury (Ref. 8 , p. 54).

During the 2004 SCDHEC ESI, coal wastes and other miscellaneous material was noted at the ground surf ace in the dump area (Ref. 10 , p. 6; 11 , p p

. 67

- 68 ).

Location of the source, with reference to a map of the facility : The Reedy River floodplain dump is located southwest of the main facility, along the Reedy River (Ref. 8 , p. 61). See Figure 2 of this HRS d ocumentation r ecord
for the location of the source

.Source No. 2

Source Characterization

27 2.2.2 **HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOURCE**

**- 2004 ESI**  The following sample s were collected during the 2004 ESI conducted by SCDHEC (Ref.

10 , p. 15). Soil samples CM

- 035

- SO and CM

- 037

- SO were collected from the dump
area and consist of dark, silty soil and black loose sandy soil, respectively ; sample CM

- 037

- SO contained small pieces of slag and ash as well (Ref. 9, p. 546;
10 , p. 15; 11 , pp. 67

- 68, 88). Background soil sample CM

- 018

- SO was collected during the 2004 ESI from an area upgradient of the facility (Ref. 9, p. 547). All samples were collected in accordance with the SCDHEC Bureau of Land and Waste
Management SOPs and the USEPA Region 4, SESD EISOPQAM, ( Ref . 9 , pp. 524, 544 ; 49 )

. Samples were submitted to ChemT ech Consulting Group, an EPA CLP laboratory, for
EPA TCL and TAL parameters (Refs. 9 , p. 544; 10 , pp. 32

- 33, 226

- 228). QA/QC information for these samples is located in Reference 10, pp. 314

- 328. See Figure
3 of t his HRS d ocumentation r ecord for sample locations.

- Background

**Sample**

**ID Sample Type**  **Date Hazardous** 

**Substance Hazardous** 

**Substance**
**Concentration (mg/kg)**  **Contract Required**  **Quantitation Limit (CRQL)**  **(mg/kg) References** 

CM

018

- SO Soil 8/17/2004 Arseni c 9.4 1 9, pp. 547, 552, 717; 10, pp. 31,

211 ; 11, p. 64; 50

, p. 2 Chromium 49 1

Copper 9.0 2.5

Lead 25 1

Notes:

CM - Cone Mills

SO - Soil Sample mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogram

**Sample**

**ID Sample Type**  **Date Hazardous** 

**Substance Hazardous** 

**Substance**
**Concentration (mg/kg)**  **Contract Required**  **Quantitation Limit (CRQL)**  **(mg/kg) References** 

CM

035

- SO Soil 8/17/2004 Arsenic 3,300 1 9, pp. 548, 732; 10, pp. 32, 226 ; 11 , p. 88 ; 50 , p. 2 Copper 140 2.5

Lead 220 1

CM

03 7- SO Soil 8/17/2004 Arsenic 23 1 9, pp. 548, 734;
10 , pp. 33, 228 ; 11 , p. 68 ; 50 , p. 2 Chromium 670 1

Copper 490 2.5

Lead 600 1

Notes:

CM - Cone Mills

SO - Soil sample mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogramSource No. 2

Source Characterization
28 List of Hazardou s Substances Associated with Source 2 : Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Lead

**2.2.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AVAILABLE TO A PATHWAY**

**Containment Description Containment** 

**Factor Value Ref.** 

Release via overland migration and/or flood:
Source 2 has no liner. There i s no maintained engineered cover or functioning and maintained

run

- on control system and runoff management
system. Dumped materials were deposited on the ground. The dump area is located adjacent to the Reedy River and no barrier is in place to prevent

m igration into the river . The dump area is
located in the 100

- year floodplain ; heavy flooding of the Reedy River is documented and occurred as recently as June 2004. 10 1, Section

4 .1.2.1

.

2.1.1

, Table 4

-

2; 8

, pp. 51

- 52 , 130 ;

10 , p. 6 ; 54;

55 , pp

. 1

, 2 , 5Source No. 2

Source Characterization
29 **2.4.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity**

**2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity**

Insufficient data is available to evaluate the hazardous constituent quantity.

Hazardou s Constituent Quantity Value : Not Scored (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.1)

**2.4.2.1.2 H azardous Wastestream Quantity** 

Insufficient data is available to evaluate the hazardous wastestream quantity.

Hazardou s Wastestream Quantity Value : Not Scored (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.2)

**2.4.2.1.3 Volume**

Insufficient data is available to evaluate the vo lume.

Volume Value : 0 (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.3)

**2.4.2.1.4 Area** The area of the former dump is unknown; therefore, the area is considered to be

>0.

Area Assigned Value: >0 Reference 1, Section 2.4.2.1.4, Table 2

- 5

**2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Qu antity Value** 

Highest assigned value assigned from Ref. 1, Table 2

- 5: **>0** Reference: 1, Section 2.4.2.2Source No. 3

Source Characterization
30 2.2.1 **SOURCE IDENTIFICATION**
Name of the source : Northern Reservoir Number of the source : 3

HRS Source Type : Contaminated Soil

Description of the source:

The 70,000,000

- gallon former Northern Reservoir , also referred to as the raw water reservoir, was constructed in 1954 to store raw water and was drained in 2006 (Refs. 24 , p. 1; 15 , p. 2 ; 56 , pp. 1

- 3; 57 , p. 2 ) . There is no natural water
source to the fo rmer Northern Reservoir other than the minor amount of water received through direct precipitation and overland flow (Refs. 3; 9, p p. 6, 7; 43, p. 14). Intakes in the Langston Creek impoundment were used to fill and maintain the approximately 16

- acre form er Northern Reservoir (Refs. 10, pp. 6, 23; 24 , p. 1). The intake on the Reedy River was not used to fill the former Northern
Reservoir , the 16

- inch pipe used to fill the raw water lagoon was removed when the
former Northern Reservoir was built in 1953 (Refs. 10, p. 7; 24 , p. 1). Piping
moved the w a ter from the Langston Creek impoundment, downstream of the plant outfall, to the former Northern Reservoir ; although the piping intersects at the aeration lagoon, no water was exchanged (Ref. 10, p. 23). The intake used to fill
the former Northern Reservoir was located in the Langston Creek impoundment; however, the dam of the impoundment was damaged in 2005 and is no longer in service (Ref. 9, p. 10 ). Due to the presence of contamination , the damaged intake

w as not repaired, and the water level in the former Northern Reservoir began to decline (Refs. 9, p. 9; 43 , p. 14 ; 58 , p. 1; 59 , pp. 1, 3 ) . Reportedly, the former Northern Reservoir was to be drained and the fish disposed of properly, although no sediment was to be removed by AFP (Refs. 56, pp. 1

- 3; 59, pp. 1

- 2). However, available file information does not provide documentation of the actual draining process. By the time of the 2007 Duke Energy soil removal, the majority
of the former Northern Reservoir was dry (Ref. 43 , p. 14). The reservoir, when filled to capacity, discharged overland to wetlands and to Langston Creek upstream of the facility (Ref s . 9, p. 9 ; 11, p. 10).

The reservoir is partially fenced, but was regularly accessed for fishing and

r ecreational use as recently as 2004 (Ref s . 10 , p. 8 ; 11, p. 4). Empty bait containers, discarded fishing equipment, refuse, swimming children and a dock were observed by SCDHEC personnel during the 2004 ESI (Ref s . 10 , p. 8; 11, p p . 10, 60

- 61 ) . During the 2005 MACTEC Site Assessment, fish tissue sampling was conducted
in the former Northern Reservoir. PCBs detected in the fish tissue samples prompted a SCDHEC consumption advisory for largemouth bass and signage posted along the banks of the reservoir (Ref s. 9, p. 8; 41 , p. 8).

The former Northern Reservoir was sampled during the 2004 SCDHEC ESI

, the 2005 MACTEC Site Assessment, and the 2006 SCDHEC ESI Update (Refs. 9, pp. 7, 8; 10, p p. 1, 17; 41 , pp. 1, 7- 9). One sediment sample was collected during the 2004 SCDHEC ESI, 12 sediment samples were collected along the perimeter of the reservoir during the 2005 MACTEC Site Assessment, and one sediment sample was collected at the emergency spillway during the 2006 SCDHEC ESI Update (Refs. 9, p. 6 ; 10, pp.

7- 8; 41 , p . 28). Results of the sampling events are summarized below.

A 2006 investigation by Duke Energy determined that the source of PCB
contamination in the former Northern Reservoir was from leaks from PCB

- containing electrical equipment located along Langston Creek (Ref. 42 , p. 14). According to the investigation, leaks from the equipment contaminated the adjacent soil that was then transported to Langston Creek and the inlet structure for the pipe supplying the former Northern Reservoir with water. The PCB

- impacted sediment was then discharged to the former Northern Reservoir, where it settled out and was biologically available (Ref. 42 , p. 14). In 2007, Duke Energy removed soil contaminated by PCBs from the area surrounding the structure that disch arged water from Langston Creek into the former Northern Reservoir to a depth of between 2.5 and 3 feet (Ref. 43 , p. 15).Source No. 3

Source Characterization
31 Location of the source, with reference to a map of the facility : The former Northern Reservoir is located north of the main facilit y, across Old Buncombe Road. A residential neighborhood is located north and southeast of the
former Northern Reservoir ; Lakeview Middle School is located directly west of the
former Northern Reservoir , across Old Buncombe Road. See Figure 2 of this HRS
d ocumentation r ecord for the location of Source 3.Source No. 3

Source Characterization
32 2.2.2 Hazardous Substances Associated with the Source

**- 2004 ESI** 

The following sample was collected during the 2004 ESI conducted by SCDHEC (Ref.

10 , p. 15). Sediment sample CM

- 006

- SE was collected from the former Northern
Reservoir near the influent pipe; a sludge

- like layer was noted in the sample (Ref s

. 9, p. 546; 10, pp. 17, 24; 11, p p

. 60, 61, 64). The source sample was compared to background soil sample CM

- 018

- SO, collected in an area upgradient of the facility. T he former Northern Reservoir was created with natural soil and is currently drained; therefore , background soil sample CM

- 018

- SO represents conditions prior to filling the former Northern Reservoir ( Refs. 3; 9, p. 7; 43, p. 14). All samples were collected in accordance with the SCDHEC Bureau of Land and Waste Management SOPs and the USEPA Region 4, SESD EISOPQAM, (Ref s . 9, pp. 524, 544 ; 49 ). Samples were submitted to ChemTech Consulting Group, an EPA CLP laboratory, for EPA TCL and TAL parameters (Refs. 9, p. 544; 10, pp. 32

- 33). QA/QC information for these samples is located in Reference 10, pp. 314

- 328. See Figure 3 of this HRS d ocumentation r ecord for sample locations.

- Background Sample

**Sample**

**ID Sample Type**  **Date Hazardous** 

**S ubstance**  **Hazardous**

**Substance**
**Concentration (mg/kg)**  **Contract Required**  **Quantitation Limit (CRQL)**  **(mg/kg) References** 

CM

018

- SO Soil 8/17/2004 Chromium 49 1 9, pp. 547, 717; 10, pp. 31, 211

, 315 ; 11, p. 64; 50

, p. 2 Copper 9.0 2.5

Zinc 40 6

Notes:

CM - Cone Mills

SO - Soil sample mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogram

- Source Samples

**Sample**

**ID Sample Type**  **Date Hazardous** 

**Substance Hazardous** 

**Substance**
**Concentration (mg/kg)**  **Contract Required**  **Quantitation Limit (CRQL)**  **(mg/kg) References** 

CM

006

- SE Sediment 8/18/2004 Chromium 250 1 9 , pp. 546, 632 ; 10, pp. 34, 126

, 319 ; 11, pp. 60

- 61 ; 50 , p. 2 Copper 6,800 2.5

Zinc 150 6

Notes:

CM - Cone Mills

SE - Sediment sample mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogramSource No. 3

Source Characterization
33 **- 2005 MACTEC Site Assessment**  The samples below were collected during the February 2005 sampling event conducted by MACTEC for SCDHEC (Ref. 41 ). All samples below were collected from the former
Northern Reservoir and compared to the Langston Creek sediment sample USF

- 001

- SE

. Although not collected from an impoundment, the intake in the impoundment on Langston Creek is the source of water for the former Northern Reservoir and the
source of much of the sediment in the former Northern Reservoir , as evidenced by the presence of PCB

- laden sediments (Ref s . 10, p. 7)

. The emergency overflow
allow ed water and sediments to exit the former Northern Reservoir , which then
flowed overland into Langston Creek downstream of USF

- 001

- SE (Ref. 11, p. 10) . No
other streams fe ed into the former Northern Reservoir , which has a limited area of drainage (Ref s

. 3; 10, pp. 8, 17). The SCDHEC samples were collected in
accordance with the EPA EISOPQAM dated May 1996 and the MACTEC samples were
collected in accordance with the Septemb er 2001 EISOPQAM update (Ref s

. 9, p. 882;

41 , pp. 7

- 9 ; 49 ). Sample locations are depicted in Figure 3 of this HRS
documentation r ecord

.

The samples below were analyzed in accordance with the USEPA SW

- 846 guidance entitled Test Methods for Evaluating Soli d Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods. Sediment samples were analyzed by Shealy Environmental Services, Inc., using USEPA Methods 6010B and 7471A (Ref. 41 , pp. 9, 12, 31

- 79). The QA/QC information is
located in Reference 41

.

- Background Sample

**Sample**

**ID Sample Type**  **Date Hazardous** 

**Substance Hazardous** 

**Substance**
**Concentration (mg/kg)**  **Contract Required**  **Quantitation Limit (CRQL)**  **(mg/kg) References** 

USF

001

- SE Sediment 6/21/2005 Arsenic 0.60UJ a 1 9, pp. 895, 933;
50 , p. 2 Chromium 16 1

Copper 5.7 J b 2.5

Lead 7.7 1

Total
Mercury 0.13U 0.1

Zinc 30J c 6

Notes:

a

- The result is qualified “ U J” due to the Performance Evaluation (PE) sample recovery greater than the warning limit and baseline instability in calibration blanks. Therefore , the bias is high and the sample is usable without adjusting (Refs. 9, p. 933; 61 , pp. 1

- 5, 13).
b

- The result is qualified “J” due to the PE sample recovery greater than the action limit. Therefore, the bias is high and the sample
is usable without ad justing (Refs. 9, p. 933; 61 , pp. 1

- 5, 13).

c

- The result is qualified “J” due to the PE sample recovery greater than the warning limit and the matrix spike recovery is equal to 129%. Therefore, the bias is high and the sample is usable without adjustin g (Refs. 9, p. 933; 61 , pp. 1

- 5, 13).

J

- Identification of analyte is acceptable; reported value is an
estimate.
CRQL

- Contract Required Quantitation Limit (Ref. 50 ).

ID

- Identification mg/kg

- Milligrams per kilogram

U

- Analyte not detected a t or above reporting limit.

UJ

- Analyte not detected at or above reporting limit. Reporting
limit is an estimate.

USF

- US Finishing ; SE

- Sediment sampleSource No. 3

Source Characterization
34 - Source Samples

**Sample ID Hazardous Substance**  **Concentration (units)**  **Practical**
**Qua ntitation** 
**Limit Ref.** 

NR

- 001

- SE Arsenic 10 mg/kg 2.6 mg/kg 41 , pp. 58, 61

Chromium 140 mg/kg 2.6 mg/kg

Copper 3,600 mg/kg 2.6 mg/kg

Total Mercury 0.26 mg/kg 0.18 mg/kg

NR

- 002

- SE Arsenic 9.2 mg/kg 2.5 mg/kg 41 , pp. 59, 6 1

Chromium 99 mg/kg 2.5 mg/kg

NR

- 003

- SE Arsenic 9.0 mg/kg 1.8 mg/kg 41 , pp. 55, 61

Chromium 58 mg/kg 1.8 mg/kg

NR

- 004

- SE Arsenic 7.0 mg/kg 2.0 mg/kg 41 , pp. 56, 61

NR

- 005

- SE Arsenic 7.4 mg/kg 1.7 mg/kg 41 , pp. 57, 61

Copper 230 mg/kg 1.7 mg/kg

NR

- 006

- SE Arsenic 10 mg/kg 2.7 mg/kg 41 , pp. 60

- 61

Chromium 130 mg/kg 2.7 mg/kg

Copper 3,400 mg/kg 2.7 mg/kg

NR

- 007

- SE Arsenic 20 mg/kg 4.0 mg/kg 41 , pp. 68, 79

Chromium 120 mg/kg 4.0 mg/kg

Copper 1,900 mg/kg 4.0 mg/kg

Lead 70 mg/kg 4.0 mg/kg

Zinc 120 mg/kg 40 mg/kg

NR

- 008

- SE Arsenic 12 mg/kg 4.6 mg/kg 41 , pp. 69, 79

Chromium 110 mg/kg 4.6 mg/kg

Copper 2,800 mg/kg 4.6 mg/kg

Zinc 110 mg/kg 46 mg/kg

N R

- 009

- SE Arsenic 12 mg/kg 5.0 mg/kg 41 , pp. 70

- 71,
79 Chromium 120 mg/kg 5.0 mg/kg

Copper 2,200 mg/kg 5.0 mg/kg

Lead 61 mg/kg 5.0 mg/kg

Total Mercury 0.18 mg/kg 0.17 mg/kg

Zinc 110 mg/kg 50 mg/kgSource No. 3

Source Characterization
35 NR

- 010

- SE Arsenic 14 mg/kg 4.3 mg/kg 41 , pp. 72, 79

Chromium 110 mg/kg 4.3 mg/kg

Copper 1,400 mg/kg 4.3 mg/kg

Lead 52 mg/kg 4.3 mg/kg

Zinc 98 mg/kg 43 mg/kg

NR

- 011

- SE Arsenic 11 mg/kg 5.3 mg/kg 41 , pp. 73

- 74,
79 Chromium 80 mg/kg 5.3 mg/kg

Copper 2,300 mg/kg 5.3 mg/kg

Lead 61 mg/kg 5.3 mg/kg

Zinc 120 mg/kg 53 mg/kg

NR

- 012

- SE Arsenic 11 mg/kg 5.0 mg/kg 41 , pp. 75

- 76,
79

Chromium 150 mg/kg 5.0 mg/kg

Copper 3,500 mg/kg 5.0 mg/kg

Lead 77 mg/kg 5.0 mg/kg

Zinc 130 mg/kg 50 mg/kg

Notes: mg/kg

- Milligrams per kilogram

NR

- Northern Reservoir

SE

- Sediment

List of Hazardous Substances Associated with Source 3:
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Lead Total Mercury

Z inc

**2.2.3 HAZARDOUS SUBST ANCES AVAILABLE TO A PATHWAY** 

Containment Description Containment
Factor Value Ref.

Release via overland migration and/or flood:
Source 3 has no liner. There is no maintained engineered cover or functioning and maintained

run

- on control system and ru noff management
system. The former Northern Reservoir was drained in 2006. Prior to draining, the former
Northern Reservoir drained via overland flow into Langston Creek from the emergency overflow. 10 1, Section

4 .1.2.1

. 2.1.1

, Table 4

- 2 ; 11, p. 10; 56, pp.

1

- 3; 59, pp. 1

- 2

**2.4.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity**

**2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity**Source No. 3

Source Characterization
36 Insufficient data is available to evaluate the hazardous constituent quantity.

Hazardous Constituent Quantity Value (S): Not Scored (Ref. 1, Section 2.4 .2.1.1)

**2.4.2.1.2 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity**

Insufficient data is available to evaluate the hazardous wastestream quantity.

Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Value (W): Not Scored (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.2)

**2.4.2.1.3 Volume**

Insufficient data is avai lable to evaluate the volume

.

Volume Value : 0 (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.3)

**2.4.2.1.4 Area**
Based on the contaminated samples NR

- 001

- SE, NR

- 006

- SE, NR

- 012

- SE, NR

- 010

- SE, NR

002

- SE, NR

- 009

- SE, NR

- 008

- SE, NR

- 007

- SE, NR

- 003

- SE, NR

- 005

- SE, NR

- 004

- SE, and NR

011

- SE , the area of contaminated soil within the area of the former Northern
Reservoir was determined to be 511,035 square feet (ft 2 ).

Source Type Description Units ( ft 2 ) References

Contaminated
Soil Contaminated soil
within the area of the
former N orthern
Reservoir 511,035 41 , pp. 55

- 79;
62 , pp. 1

- 2

Area Assigned Value: 511,035 ft 2 ÷ 34,000 = 15.03 (Ref. 1, Section 2.4.2.1.4)

**2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value**

**H ighest assigned value assigned from Ref. 1, Table 2** 

**- 5: 1**  **5.03**Source Summary

Source Characterization

37 **SUMMA RY OF SOURCE DESCRIPTIONS** 

**Source**

**No. Source** 
**Hazardous Waste Quantity** 

**Value Source** 
**Hazardous**
**Constituent**

**Quantity Complete?** 
**(Y/N) Containment Factor Value by Pathway** 

**Ground**

**Water**

**(GW)**
**(Ref. 1,**

**Table 3**

**- 2)**  **Surface Water (SW) Air** 

**Overlan d/** 

**flood**
**(Ref. 1,**

**Table 4**

**- 2)**  **GW to SW (Ref. 1,** 

**Table 3**

**- 2)**  **Gas (Ref.** 

**1,**

**Table**

**6**

**- 3)**  **Particulate**

**(Ref. 1,**

**Table 6**

**- 9)** 

1 17,000 N NS 10 NS NS NS

2 >0 N NS 10 NS NS NS

3 15.03 N NS 10 NS NS NS

Sum of Source Hazardous Waste Quantit y Values: 17,015

Notes:

NS

- Not Scored

R eference 1, Section 2.4.2.2

**Other Possible**  **Sources:**
Other possible sources are present at the facility. See Figure 2 of this HRS
d ocumentation r ecord for a map of these potential sources. However, insufficient
da ta is available to adequately evaluate the following sources:

**•** The sludge settling impoundment (also referred to in file material as a sludge burial area, sludge disposal area, spoils lagoon, and sludge landfill) was originally a permitted temporary sludge settling impoundment built during the expansion of the aeration lagoon in April 1975. The dredged material from the aeration lagoon, as a wastewater/sludge combination, was pumped into the sludge settling impoundment and allowed to settle. The supernatan t was then transferred back to the newly expanded aeration lagoon (Refs. 45 , pp. 1

- 3; 48 , p. 1; 53 , p. 5). Wastewater placed into the aeration lagoon included spent liquor from the
boil

- out machines, the continuous bleaching machines, and the
mercertizers ; wastewater from the basement; and accumulated dye sludge cleaned out during the July 4 th plant shutdowns (Refs. 8, pp. 14, 38; 45

, p. 2).

After the supernatant from the sludge settling pond was decanted, sludge was allowed to dry and then was buried ( Refs. 16 , p. 3; 45 , p. 3; 48 , p. 1; 53 , p. 5). According to the 1991 RI/FS, Cone Mills calculated approximately 1

- inch of dried sludge, or 250,000 pounds, remained in the sludge settling impoundment, which had a capacity of 2.25 million gallons (Refs. 8, p. 92; 16 , p. 3 ). Chromium concentrations of 17,000 mg/kg were present in a soil sample collected by Cone Mills in 1984 (Ref. 8 , p. 41). In 1989, two soil samples were collected that indicated the presence of arsenic (2.6 to 2.7 mg/kg), barium (34 to 221 mg/kg), chromium (5,860 to 38,460 mg/kg), lead (8.6 to 48 mg/kg), and mercury (0.14 mg/kg) (Ref. 8

, p. 47). During the 1991 RI/FS, four soil boring samples were collected;
results indicated chromium ranging from 13,780 to 36,000 mg/kg. Other
constituents detected in the soil borings included arsenic, barium, cadmium, lead, mercury, and selenium (Ref. 8 , pp. 92 , 96 ).

**•** During the operational history of the facility, d ye waste was discharged directly into the basement (Refs. 8 , p. 36; 13 , p. 6 ). The easter n and western sides of the basement were separated by a concrete trench, approximately 2.5 to 3 feet wide and approximately 3 to 5 feet deep, withSource Summary

Source Characterization

38 a slope from north to south (Ref. 13 , p. 6 ). The western half of the basement contained a wastewater conveya nce system that included the dye sump, piping, and smaller trenches leading to the main wastewater trench (Ref. 13 , p. 6 ). Most of the wastewaters discharged directly to the floor of the basement and flowed through a series of trenches to the main trench (Ref s

. 8 , p. 13

- 14; 13 , p. 6 ). Prior to the purchase of the facility by AFP, the west wall opening was flush with the outside grade to allow stormwater runoff to flow through the dye sump to flush the sludge out of the dye sump (Ref. 13 , p. 7 ). Once a ye ar, on July 4 th , Cone Mills shut down the plant and removed contaminated dye sludge from the basement (Ref.

8 , p. 36 ). Cleanout of the dye sump in western half of the basement was conducted from either the first floor via stairs or from an opening the

wes t exterior wall of the dye sump, near the boiler stack (Ref. 13 , p. 7 ). Prior to the 1980s, the basement flooded weekly to a depth of 1 to 5 feet as lint and cloth scraps plugged the pipes and ditches or as Langston Creek flooded into the basement area (Re f. 8 , pp. 13

- 14). Chemicals were
stored in the basement until a flood in 1974 inundated the basement and flooded many of the chemical storage areas (Ref. 8 , p. 14).

The dye waste and oxidizing material flowed directly into Langston Creek
from the main trench until the construction of the aeration lagoon, when

wastes then migrated to the lagoon (Refs. 8 , pp. 13

- 14; 13 , pp. 5

, 6; 15

, p. 1 ). In 1989, AFP diverted the stormwater from the basement and piped it into the drainage system connected to the aerat ion lagoon (Ref. 8 , p. 14).

Samples of the dye sludge removed in 1981, 1983, and 1984 contained concentrations of heavy metals including cadmium (4.5 to 15 mg/kg), chromium (2,800 to 40,250 mg/kg), copper (1,065 to 2,400 mg/kg), iron (63,250 mg/kg), lead (118 to 1,290 mg/kg), mercury (43.6 μg/ kg), and zinc (4,075 to 4,650 mg/kg) (Ref. 8 , pp. 36

- 37 ). Arsenic and barium were not analyzed during these years; only chromium was analyzed in 1984 (Ref. 8

, p. 37). During these years, the dye sludge from the base ment cleanout was transported to a hazardous waste landfill (Ref. 8 , p. 36 ).

Although reportedly cleaned out prior to the purchase by AFP, the dye sludge was not completely removed from the basement; samples of the remaining sludge from the basement col lected in 1988 exhibited the following concentrations of heavy metals: arsenic ( 3.6 mg/kg ) , barium ( 192 mg/kg ) , cadmium ( 1 mg/kg ) ; chromium ( 7,596 mg/kg ) , copper ( 394 mg/kg )

, iron ( 28,846 mg/kg ) , lead ( 28.8 mg/kg ) , mercury ( 480 μg/ kg ) , nickel ( 73 mg/kg ) , a nd zinc ( 904 mg/kg ) (Ref. 8 , pp. 36

- 37). According to AFP, chromium and zinc were not used in their oxidation processes (Ref. 8 , p. 36).

In 1994, AFP contractors removed the residuals in the basement that
exceeded metal action levels (Ref. 13 , pp. 8

- 10 ). By 1999, visual observations by FGI, contractor for AFP, indicated that the residuals with
elevated metals concentrations in the basement areas were removed to the extent feasible (Ref. 13 , p. 10 ). However, the degraded concrete floor
and soil benea th the basement was not removed (Ref. 13 ).

No samples were collected from the basement during the 2004 ESI or 2006 ESI Update. Adequate documentation of the data from previous sampling events is not available in the file material; therefore, this possib le
source area was not included in the HRS calculations.

**•** The 32

- feet by 12

- feet brine pit is a concrete basin located on the southwest side of the facility (Ref. 10 , p. 10). The brine pit was used for the storage of a brine solution used in plant processe s (Ref. 10 , p. 10). Following the 2003 fire, the brine pit cover was removed ; the contents pumped out and transported off the property for use by another manufacturer (Ref. 10 , p. 10). Approximately 1 foot of sludge and 3 feetSource Summary

Source Characterization

39 of rainwater remain ed in th e brine pit as of the 2005. Samples collected from the sludge in 2005 by SCDHEC exhibited concentrations of arsenic, chromium, copper, magnesium, manganese, nickel, zinc, and PCBs (Ref. 10

, p. 10). As t here is no evidence of release to the surface water pathway from the brine pit and the brine pit has been removed, this possible
source was not used for HRS calculations

.

**•** Despite removal of soils contaminated with metals and PCBs, s oil
contamination is still present throughout the facility property, as stat ed by the 2005 FGI letter to SCDHEC on behalf of US Finishing (Ref. 23 , p p

. 1, 5).SWOF

- Likelihood of Release 40 

### 4.0 SURFACE WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY

**4.1 OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT**

**4.1.1.1 Definition of Hazardous Substance Migration Path for Overland/flood**
**Component**

S urface water runoff from the US Finishing/Cone Mills facility enters either the Reedy River or Langston Creek

. A topographic high is located on the main portion
of the facility property, just north of the backfilled sludge landfill, which
divides surface water flow into the Reedy River or the Langston Creek (Refs. 3; 8, p. 16). T he eastern portion of the main property slopes toward the east

southeast , in the area of the main plant ; therefore, surface water runoff is directed towards Langston Creek (Refs. 3; 9, p. 860; 11, p. 10; 60 , pp. 4

- 6). Prior to the 1980s, wastewaters deposited into the basement would migrate via a series of ditches to a main ditch that then flowed directly into Langston Creek (Ref. 8, p. 13). When the basement flooded due to plugg ing of the pipes and ditches of the basement with lint and cloth, the floodwaters were directed back into Langston Creek (Ref. 8, p p. 13 , 14 ). Surface water runoff from the western portion of the plant flowed through the basement and into the ditch to Lan gston Creek until 1965 (Ref. 8, p. 14 ). After 1965, stormwater was directed to the aeration lagoon (Ref s . 8, p. 13; 39 ). The eastern boundary of the property is
the floodplain for Langston Creek and consists of multiple small, unnamed, non

perennial trib utaries that drain the floodplain area towards Langston Creek (Refs. 3; 9, p. 869). The area of the former Northern Reservoir (Source 3) slopes eastward towards Langston Creek (Refs. 3). The area surrounding the

a eration l agoon (Source 1) is on a topograp hic high and slopes both in a southeasterly direction towards Langston Creek and in a southwesterly direction towards the Reedy River (Refs. 3; 8, p. 16). The western portion of the main property, in the area of the Reedy River floodplain dump (Source 2) and the former sludge burial area, slopes to the west

- southwest towards the Reedy River (Refs. 3; 8, p. 16). T he area surrounding the Northwestern Reservoir slopes towards the Reedy River (Refs. 3).

Langston Creek is a small tributary of the Reedy Ri ver, with a watershed approximately 4 square miles in size. It flows in a southerly direction through the property and discharges into the Reedy River (Refs. 3; 8, p. 19). The main branch of the creek was dammed in 1903 when Union Bleachery was originall y constructed, creating the Langston Creek impoundment (Ref. 8, p. 19). Upstream of the main facility, water from the former Northern Reservoir (Source 3) emergency overflow exited the reservoir during high rain events and travelled approximately 985 feet overland to merge with Langston Creek north of School Road (Probable Point of Entry [PPE] #1) (Refs. 3; 9, p. 23; 42 , p. 25). Langston Creek then continues in a southerly direction through the property until crossing
beneath Old Buncombe Road at 0. 40 mile s from PPE #1 (Ref. 3). Langston Creek
flows southward for approximately 0.13 miles from Old Buncombe Road, adjacent to the main portion of the facility, and enters the Langston Creek impoundment; the dam on Langston Creek is 0.17 miles downstream of Old Buncombe Road and 0.57 miles from PPE #1 (Ref. 3). Langston Creek exits the impoundment at the dam and continues in a southerly direction through the main property ; an unnamed perennial tributary of Langston Creek merges with the main branch of the creek at 0.69 miles from PPE #1, just prior to crossing under Brooks Avenue (Refs. 3; 10, p. 23; 63 , pp. 1

- 2). After crossing beneath Brooks Avenue, Langston Creek flows 0.02 miles until reaching an HRS

- qualified wetland , classified as a palustrine
scrub

- shrub wetland, adjacent to Langston Creek (Refs. 3; 9, p. 16; 63 , pp. 1

- 2;
64 , pp. 1

- 2 )

. Langston C reek flows through and adjacent to this wetland for 0.14SWOF

- Likelihood of Release 41 mile (Refs. 3; 63 , pp. 1

- 2; 64 , pp. 1

- 2 ). The wetland is southeast of the aeration lagoon; PPE #2, overl and flow from the aeration lagoon, is located on the western border of the wetland (Refs. 3; 63 , pp. 1

- 2; 64 , pp. 1

- 2 ). PPE #2 depicts the most

- upstream point of entry for the aeration lagoon surface water
flow ; PPE #2 enters the surface water pathway at the isolated wetland southeast of the aeration lagoon. As the entire length of the wetland lagoon is within the

15

- mile target distance limit (TDL), the perimeter of the wetland is 1,243 feet (Refs. 3; 64 , pp. 1

- 2) . Langston Creek continues adjacent to the wetland area
for 0.85 mile from PPE #1. PPE #3, the farthest downstream entry for overland flow from the aeration lagoon (Source 1) into the surface water pathway, is
located on Langston Creek just before the creek enters a culvert beneath Highway

253 (Refs. 3; 63 , pp. 1

- 2; 64 , pp. 1

- 2 ). PPE #3 is 0.87 mile from PPE #1 (Refs.

3; 63 , pp. 1

- 2; 64 , pp. 1

- 2 ). Langston Creek then exits the property, continuing in a southeasterly direction for 0.07 mile before entering an HRS

- qualified wetland, classified as palustrine forested (Refs. 3; 9, p. 16; 63 , pp. 1

- 2; 64

, pp. 1

- 2 ). Langston Creek continues through this wetland for 0.16 mile before merging with the Reedy River (Refs. 3; 63 , pp. 1

- 2; 64 , pp. 1

- 2 ). The total
distance of the surface water migration p athway within Langston Creek is 1.1 mile (Refs. 3; 63 , pp. 1

- 2). See Figure 4 for an illustration of the PPEs and surface water flow in the vicinity of the property.

On the western portion of the property, surface water flows in a west

- southwest
direct ion towards the Reedy River (Refs. 3; 8, p. 16; 63 , pp. 1

- 2; 64 , pp. 1

- 2 ). The Reedy River flows through the property for 0.60 mile upstream of any PPE from
sources scored in this HRS documentation r ecord (Refs. 3; 63 , pp. 1

- 2; 64 , pp. 1

- 2 ). Source 2, the Reedy River floodplain dump, is located adjacent to the Reedy River. The farthest upstream overland path from Source 2 is PPE #4 (Refs. 3; 8, p. 16; 63 , pp. 1

- 2; 64 , pp. 1

- 2 )

. The Reedy River continues for 233 feet to PPE #5, the farthest upstream overl and flow path from the aeration lagoon (Source 1) to the Reedy River; o verland flow from Source 2 to PPE #4 is 32 feet (Refs. 3; 8, p. 16; 63 , pp. 1

- 2; 64 , pp. 1

- 2 ). The Reedy River then continues for 22 feet until entering an HRS

- qualified wetland, class ified as palustrine scrub

- shrub, located along the banks of the Reedy River (Refs. 3; 9, p. 16; 63 , pp. 1

- 2; 64

, pp. 1

- 2 ). The Reedy River continues through the wetland for 633 feet, emerging 0.17 mile from PPE #4 (Refs. 3; 63 , pp. 1

- 2; 64 , pp. 1

- 2 ). PPE #6 is the farthest downstream PPE on the Reedy River and represents the overland flow from
the aeration lagoon across the Reedy River floodplain, and is the approximate location of the former pump house (Refs. 3; 8, p. 52; 63 , pp. 1

- 2; 64 , pp. 1

- 2 ).

In 1 976, water from the aeration lagoon leaked into the Reedy River through an uncapped 15

- inch pipeline ending at the pump house (Ref. 24 , pp. 1

- 2). See Figure 4 for an illustration of the PPEs and surface water flow in the vicinity of the property.

The 15

- mile surface water pathway target distance limit (TDL) begins at PPE #6, the most downstream point of entry into the surface water pathway. From PPE #6, surface water continues along the Reedy River for 200 feet until the convergence with Langston Creek. Surface water flows in the Reedy River in a south

southeasterly direction through the city of Greenville until the end of the 15

- mile TDL (Ref. 3). The Reedy River flows through several local municipal parks along the 15

- mile TDL, including Cleveland Pa rk, Reedy River Falls Park, and the Lake Conestee Nature Park (Ref. 65 , p. 1

- 3). See Reference 3 of this HRS
d ocumentation r ecord for an illustration of the 15

- mile surface water TDL.

Chr omium contamination from the facility is present in the floodplain east of Langston Creek (Ref. 8, p. 22). The 1968 Basement Plan Map depicts a “ditch to creek” located south of the plant (Ref. 13 , p. 6, 13 ). Langston Creek regularly flooded into the basement area of the plant (Ref. 8, pp. 13

- 14). A fire in
November 20 03 destroyed much of the main facility (Ref. 19 , pp. 1

- 2). Fifteen toSWOF

- Likelihood of Release 42 25 million gallons of fire suppression water containing unknown constituents from the facility was released to Langston Creek and the Reedy River (Refs. 10, p. 6;

19 , pp. 1

- 2). Within the Langston Creek impoundment is an outfall from the facility and the surface water intake that directed water to the former Northern
Reservoir (Ref s

. 3; 8, p. 19 ; 9 , p. 23 ).

**4.1.2.1 Likelihood of Release**

**4.1.2.1.1 Observed Release**

Chemical Analysi s

- Background Concentrations:

SCDHEC personnel collected the following background samples during the ESI Update sampling event starting on June 20, 2005 (Ref. 9 ). The samples below were collected from Langston Creek upstream of site influences (Ref s

. 9

, p p. 869 , 882,
884; 60 ). All samples were collected in accordance with the SCDHEC Bureau of Land and Waste Management SOPs and the USEPA Region 4, SESD EISOPQAM ( Ref s

. 9 , pp. 524, 544 ; 49 )

. Samples were submitted to Bonner Analytical Testing (Bonner), an

E PA CLP laboratory, for EPA TCL and TAL parameters (Refs. 9 , p p

. 524, 544 , 895

- 896, 925 ; 50 , pp. 4

- 5 )

. QA/QC information for these s amples is located in
Reference 9 , p ages 931

- 941

. See Figure 3 this HRS d ocumentation r ecord for sample locations. Backgrou nd sample USF

- 001

- SW corresponds to release samples

USF

- 013

- SW and USF

- 014

- SW. Background sample USF

- 001

- SE corresponds to release samples USF

- 009

- SE, USF

- 011

- SE, USF

- 013

- SE, USF

- 014

- SE, and USF

- 015

- SE. Background sample USF

- 016

- SE corresponds to release samples USF

- 017

- SE and USF

018

- SE.

**Sample**

**ID Sample** 
**Medium Sample Location**  **Depth (inch** 

**es) Date**  **Reference**

USF

- 001

- SW Surface

water Langston Creek, upstream of overland
flow from the former

Northern Reservoir 0

– 2 6/21/2005 9 , pp. 869,
8 81

- 882,
885; 60 , p. 24

USF

- 001

- SE Sediment Langston Creek, upstream of overland
flow from the former

Northern Reservoir 0

– 2 6/21/2005 9 , pp. 869,
881

- 882,
885 , 895 ; 60 , p. 24

USF

- 0 16

- SE Sediment Wetlands adjacent to a

non

- perennial tributary to Langston
Creek upstream of Old Buncombe Road, west of
the main branch of Langston Creek, and upstream of the facility 0

– 6 6/21/2005 9 , pp. 881

- 882 , 884

, 885 ; 60 , pp. 19

- 20SWOF

- Likelihood of Release 43 **Sample ID Hazardous** 

**Substance Concentration**  ***** **Contract Required**  **Quantitation Limit (CRQL)**  **Reference**

USF

- 001

- SW Chromium 1.5 J a (1.95) μg/ L 10 μg/L 9 , pp. 896, 933;
50 , p. 2; 6 0 , p. 24 Manganese 52 μg/ L 15 μg/L

Zinc 5.3 J b (6.837) μg/ L 60 μg/L

USF

- 001

- SE Arsenic 0.60UJ c mg/kg 1 mg/kg 9 , pp. 895 , 933;
50 , p. 2 ; 60 , p. 24 Chromium 16 mg/kg 1 mg/kg

Copper 5.7J d mg/kg 2.5 mg/kg

Lead 7.7 mg/kg 1 mg/kg

Total Mercury 0.13U mg/kg 0.1 mg/kg

Zinc 30J e mg/kg 6 mg/kg

USF

- 016

- SE Arsenic 6.3J f mg/kg 1 mg/kg 9 , pp. 925, 940;
50 , p. 2 ; 60 , p. 19, 20 Cadmium 0.91UJ g mg/kg 0.5 mg/kg

Chromium 54 mg/kg 1 mg/kg

Copper 21J h mg/kg 2.5 mg/kg

Notes: * Adjusted values in parentheses.

a

- The reason for bias is not listed in the QA/QC sheets . As the value is below the CRQL, the bias is unknown. Therefore, as the sample is a background sample, the value was multiplied by the adjustment factor (1.5J μg/L x 1.3 = 1.95 μg/L ) (Refs. 9, pp. 896, 933; 61, pp. 1

- 9 , 1 8 ).
b

- The reason for bias is not listed in the Q A/QC sheets . As the value is below the CRQL, the bias is unknown. T herefore, as the sample is a background sample, the value was multiplied by the adjustment factor (5.3J μg/L x 1.29 = 6.837 μg/L ) (Refs. 9, pp. 896, 933; 61, pp. 1

- 9

, 18 ).

c

- The result is qualified “ U J” due to the PE sample recovery greater than the warning limit and baseline instability in calibration blanks. Therefore, the bias is high and the sample is usable without adjusting (Refs. 9, p. 895, 933; 61, pp. 1

- 9

, 18 ).
d

- The result is qualified “J” due to the PE sample recovery greater than the action limit. Therefore, the bias is high and the sample is usable without adjusting (Refs. 9, p. 895, 933; 61, pp. 1

- 9

, 18 ).

e

- The result is qualified “J” due to the PE sample recovery gre ater than the warning limit and the matrix spike recovery is equal to 129%. Therefore, the bias is high and the sample is usable without adjusting (Refs. 9, p. 895, 933; 61, pp. 1

- 9

, 18 ).

f

- The result is qualified “J” due to the PE sample recovery
great er than the warning limit. Therefore, the bias is high and the sample is usable without adjusting (Refs. 9, p. 925, 933

, 940 ; 61, pp. 1

- 9

, 18 ).SWOF

- Likelihood of Release 44 g

- The result is qualified “ U J” due to the PE sample recovery greater than the warning limit and baseline inst ability in calibration blanks. Therefore, the bias is high and the sample is usable without adjusting (Refs. 9, p. 940 ; 61, pp. 1

- 9

, 18 ).

h

- The result is qualified “J” due to the PE sample recovery greater than the action limit. Therefore, the bias is high and the sample is usable without adjusting (Refs. 9, p. 925, 933 , 940 ; 61, pp. 1

- 9

, 18 ).

J

- Identification of analyte is acceptable; reported value is an estimate mg/kg

- Milligrams per kilogram

U

- Analyte not detected at or above reporting limi t. μg/ L

- Micrograms per liter

UJ

- Analyte not detected at or above reporting limit. Reporting limit is

an es t imate

. USF

- US Finishing

SE

- Sediment sampleSWOF

- Likelihood of Release 45 - Contaminated Samples **ESI Update** : SCDHEC personnel collected the following release samples during the ESI Update sampling event starting on June 20, 2005 (Ref. 9 ). All samples were collected in accordance with the SCDHEC Bureau of Land and Waste Management SOPs and the USEPA Region 4, SESD EISOPQAM ( Ref

. 9 , pp. 524, 544). Samples were submitted to Bonner, an EPA CLP laboratory, for EPA TCL and TAL parameters (Refs. 9 , p. 544; 50 , pp. 2

- 4). QA/QC information for these samples is located in Reference 9 , pages 931

- 941. See Figure 3 this HRS d ocumentation r ecord for sample locations.

**Sample**

**ID Sample** 
**Medium Sample Location**  **Distance**

**from PPE Depth**  **(i nch** 

**es) Date**  **Reference**

USF

013

- SW Surface

water Langston Creek
downstream of the

Langston Creek

impoundment 0.63 mile
from PPE #1 0

- 4 6/21/2
005 9 , pp. 869,
881

- 883,
885; 60 , p. 21 ; 63, pp.

1

- 2

USF

014

- SW Surface

water Unnamed tributary, upstream of
confluence with Langston Creek 0.67 mile
from PPE #1 2

- 6 6/21/2
005 9 , pp. 869,
881

- 884,
885; 60 , p. 29 ; 63, pp.

1

- 2

USF

011

- SE Sediment Langston Creek in
the area of the main plant 0.55 mile
from PPE #1 0

– 4 6/21/2
005 9, pp. 869,
881

- 883,
885; 60 , p. 22 ; 63, pp.

1

- 2

USF

013

- SE Sediment Langston Creek
downstream of Langston Creek

impoundment 0.63 mile
from PPE #1 0

– 4 6/21/2
005 9, pp. 869,
881

- 883,
885; 60 , p. 21 ; 63, pp.

1

- 2

USF

014

- SE Sediment Unnamed tributary, upstream of
confluence with Langston Creek 0.67 mile
from PPE #1 2

– 6 6/21/2
005 9, pp. 869,
881

- 884,
885; 60 , p. 29 ; 63, pp.

1

- 2

USF

015

- SE Sediment Langston Creek, upstream of Brooks

Avenue 0.71 mile
from PPE #1 3

– 8 6/21/2
005 9, pp. 869,
881

- 884,
885; 60 , p. 28 ; 63, pp.

1

- 2

USF

017

- SE Sediment Langston Creek wetlands, downstream of facility 0.85 mile
from PPE #1; 515
feet from

PPE #2 0

– 6 6/21/2
005 9, pp. 881

- 884, 885;
60 , p. 2 6 ; 63, pp. 1

- 2SWOF

- Likelihood of Release 46 **Sample**

**ID Sample** 
**Medium Sample Location**  **Distance**

**from PPE Depth**  **(i nch** 

**es) Date**  **Reference**

USF

018

- SE Sediment Langston Creek wetlands, downstream of facility 0.85 mile
from PPE #1; 522
feet from

PPE #2 0

– 4 6/21/2
005 9, pp. 881

- 884, 885;
60 , p. 27 ; 63, pp. 1

- 2

Notes:

USF

- US Finishing

SE

- Sediment Sample

SW

- Surface water sample

PPE

- Probable Point of Entry

**SAMPLE ID HAZARDOUS** 

**SUBSTANCE CONCENTRATION** 
**(UNITS) CONTRACT REQUIRED** 
**QUANTITATION LIMIT (CRQL)**  **REF ERENCES** 

USF

- 013

- SW Chromium 140 μg/ L 10 μg/L 9 , pp. 920, 939 ; 50 , p. 2
Manganese 1,400 μg/ L 15 μg/L

Zinc 350 μg/ L 60 μg/L

USF

- 014

- SW Chromium 12 μg/ L 10 μg/L 9 , pp. 922, 939 ; 50 , p. 2 Manganese 490 μg/ L 15 μg/L

USF

- 011

- SE Chromium 220 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 9 , pp. 915, 938;
50 , p. 2 Lead 28 mg/kg 1 mg/kg

USF

- 013

- SE Chromi um 51 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 9 , pp. 919, 938;
50 , p. 2

USF

- 014

- SE Chromium 55 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 9 , pp. 921, 939;
50 , p. 2 Lead 49 J a (34.03) mg/kg 1 mg/kg

USF

- 015

- SE Arsenic 1.9 J b (1.09) mg/kg 1 mg/kg 9 , pp. 923, 939 ; 50 , p. 2

USF

- 017

- SE Cadm ium 1.6 J c (1.13) mg/kg 0.5 mg/kg 9 , pp. 926, 940;
50 , p. 2 Chromium 550 mg/kg 1 mg/kgSWOF

- Likelihood of Release 47 **SAMPLE ID HAZARDOUS** 

**SUBSTANCE CONCENTRATION** 
**(UNITS) CONTRACT REQUIRED** 
**QUANTITATION LIMIT (CRQL)**  **REF ERENCES** 

USF

- 018

- SE Arsenic 370 J d (212.64) mg/kg 1 mg/kg 9 , pp. 927, 940;
50 , p. 2 Cadmium 3.4 J e (2.41) mg/kg 0.5 mg/kg

Copper 100 J f (81.97) mg/kg 2 .5 mg/kg

Notes:

a

- The result is qualified “J” because the matrix duplicate relative percent difference (RPD) is 113%. Therefore, the bias is unknown and the sample was adjusted by dividing by the adjustment factor (49 J mg/kg ÷ 1.44 = 34.03 mg/k g ) (Refs. 9,

p p. 921, 939; 61, pp. 1

- 9

, 18 ).
b

- The result is qualified “J” due to the PE sample recovery greater than the warning limit. Therefore, the bias is high and the sample was adjusted by dividing by the adjustment
factor ( 1.9J mg/kg ÷ 1.74 = 1 .09 mg/kg ) (Refs. 9, p p. 923, 939; 61, pp. 1

- 9

, 18 ).

c

- The result is qualified “J” due to the PE sample recovery greater than the warning limit. Therefore, the bias is high and the sample was adjusted by dividing by the adjustment
factor (1.6 J mg/kg ÷ 1 .41 = 1.13 mg/kg ) (Refs. 9, p p. 926, 940; 61, pp. 1

- 9

, 18 ).
d

- The result is qualified “J” due to the PE sample recovery greater than the warning limit. Therefore, the bias is high and the sample was adjusted by dividing by the adjustment
factor (370 J mg/kg ÷ 1.74 = 212.64 mg/kg ) (Refs. 9, p p. 927, 940; 61, pp. 1

- 9

, 18 ).

e

- The result is qualified “J” due to the PE sample recovery greater than the warning limit. Therefore, the bias is high and the sample was adjusted by dividing by the adjustment
fact or (3.4 J mg/kg ÷ 1.41 = 2.41 ) (Refs. 9, p p. 927, 940; 61, pp. 1

- 9

, 18 ).
f

- The result is qualified “J” due to the PE sample recovery greater than the action limit. Therefore, the bias is high and the sample was adjusted by dividing by the adjustment fact or (100 J mg/kg ÷ 1.22 = 81.97 mg/kg ) (Refs. 9, p p. 927, 940; 61, pp. 1

- 9

, 18 ).

J

- Identification of analyte is acceptable; reported value is an estimate mg/kg

- Milligrams per kilogram μg/ L

- Micrograms per liter

USF

- US Finishing

SE

- Sediment sa mple

SW

- Surface water sampleSWOF

- Likelihood of Release 48 **ATTRIBUTION**

The hazardous substances in the observed release to the surface water pathway (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, and zinc) are constituents
detected at elevated concentrations in source sam ples and are known to be associated with textile dyeing facilities (Refs. 9, pp. 869, 881

- 885, 895 , 896

, 913

- 940; 66

, Volume ( Vol. ) 4, pp. 388

- 389, Vol.8, pp. 270

- 347

, 386 ).

Based on analytical results of soil and sediment samples, source areas at the
fac ility contain primarily metals (see Section 2.2 of this HRS documentation record) . All contaminants detected at elevated concentrations in surface water and sediment samples were also present at elevated concentrations in source area soil or sediment samp les (see Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record for sample locations ; also see Sections 2.2 and 4.1.2.1 of this HRS documentation
record ).

In the area of the main plant, the property slopes from west to east towards Langston Creek (Ref s

. 3; 8 , p. 15). There is approximately a 40

- foot elevation change from the western boundary of the plant over the approximate 800 linear feet to Langston Creek (Ref s

. 3; 8 , p. 15). At the aeration lagoon, located south of the main facility, the property slopes in a sou theast direction toward the confluence of Langston Creek and the Reedy River (Ref s

. 3; 8 , p. 15). To the northwest of the aeration lagoon, a topographic divide occurs, where the land slopes to the southeast with a 30

- foot elevation change over approximate ly 400 linear feet (Ref s

. 3; 8 , p. 15).

Most wastewater discharged to the basement discharged onto the bare ground or into sumps that flowed through a series of trenches to the main trench (Ref. 8

, pp. 13

- 14). The west wall opening was flush with the o utside grade to allow stormwater runoff to flow through the dye sump and flush the sludge to Langston Creek until 1965 when it was directed to the aeration lagoon (Refs. 8, p. 14; 13

, p. 7 ). Prior to the 1980s, the basement flooded weekly to a depth of 1 to 5 feet as lint and cloth scraps plugged the pipes and ditches or as Langston Creek itself flooded into the basement area (Ref. 8 , pp. 13

- 14). Chromium contamination was detected in soils within the Langston Creek floodplain east of the facility; Cone M ills determined that the contamination was present due to chromium leaks entering ground water, migrating in a n easterly direction, and entering the surface water through seeps and springs in the floodplain (Ref. 8, p. 22).

An intake within the impoundm ent on Langston Creek was used to fill the former
Northern Reservoir (Source 3) (Refs. 9 , p. 23; 10 , p. 7; 11 , p. 3). Piping conveyed the water from the Langston Creek impoundment, downstream of the plant outfall, to the former Northern Reservoir (Ref. 10, p. 23)

. While in use, surface water from the former Northern Reservoir exited via an emergency overflow pipe at the southeast corner of the reservoir (Refs. 1 0, p. 23; 42 , p. 25). Due
to the a damaged intake and lack of rainfall , the water level in the former Northern Reservoir began to decline , and the northern reservoir was eventually drained by AFP (Refs. 9, p. 9; 43 , p. 14; 58 , p. 1; 59 , pp. 1, 3). By the 2007 Duke Energy soil removal, the majority of the former Northern Reservoir was dry (Ref. 43

, p. 14). The reservoir, when filled to capacity, discharged overland to
wetlands and to Langston Creek upstream of the facility (Ref. 9, p. 11). The reservoir is partially fenced, but was regularly accessed for fishing and recreational use as recently as 2004 (Ref. 10, p. 8). Empty bait containers, discarded fishing equipment, refuse, swimming children and a dock were observed during the 2004 ESI (Ref. 10, p. 8; 11, pp. 10, 60

- 61). During the 2005 MACTEC Site Assessment, fish tissue sampling was conducted for the former NorthernSWOF

- Likelihood of Release 49 Reservoir. PCBs detected in the fish tissue samples prompted a consumption advisory for largemouth bass from the reservoir and SCDHEC posted signage along the banks (Refs. 9, p. 8; 41 , p. 8).

Historically, both the dye waste an d the oxidizing materials were wasted into the
basement of the main facility (Ref. 8 , p. 13). The dye waste and oxidizing material initially discharged into the basement and then migrated to a series of trenches into a main ditch that flowed directly into Langston Creek (Refs. 8 , p. 13; 13 , pp. 5

- 7 ; 15 , p. 1 ). The non

- dye wastes included weak caustic soda; organic matter including lint, cotton fibers, natural waxes and pectins of cotton and sizing material; kier waste; desize waste; washer waste; and the tail end of mixes (Ref. 15

, p p. 1 , 2 ). Before the 1980s, the pipes and ditches in the basement area would become plugged on a regular basis because of lint and cloth scraps that would be discharged with the wastewater (Ref. 8 , p. 13

- 14). Water
would coll ect to depths of 1

- 5 feet on a weekly basis (Ref. 8 , p. 14). Facility workers would clean the stoppages to allow wastewater to continue its flow to Langston Creek (Ref. 8 , p. 14). Langston Creek flooded on a periodic basis and immersed portions of the ba sement area (Ref. 8 , p. 14). Chemicals were stored in the basement until a flood in 1974 inundated the basement and flooded many of the chemical storage areas (Ref. 8 , p. 14). Surface water runoff from the west side of the plant created during rainfall e vents flowed through the basement and discharged through the ditch to Langston Creek (Ref. 8 , p. 14).

The aeration lagoon (Source 1) , located south of the main plant, was built in 1965 to contain wastewater prior to discharging to the Greenville Sewer s ystem (Refs. 8, p. 36; 16 , p. 3; 18 , p. 1; 24 , pp. 1

- 2; 45 , pp. 1 ; see Figure 4 of this
HRS documentation record ). During the 2004 ESI, evidence of repeated overflow from the aeration lagoon was observed (Ref. 10, p. 9). Water from the lagoon
flows eithe r in a southeasterly direction towards the wetlands located east of the aeration lagoon, continuing to Langston Creek or in a southwesterly direction towards the Reedy River (Refs. 3; 8, p. 16). Wastewater placed into the aeration lagoon included spent li quor from the boil

- out machines, the continuous bleaching machines, and the mercertizers; wastewater from the basement; and accumulated dye sludge cleaned out during the July 4 th plant shutdowns (Refs. 8, pp. 14, 38; 9, pp. 181

- 184; 45 , p. 2). Although ch romium use at the facility ended in 1975,
chromium

- containing waste continued to enter the lagoon via stormwater, as
chromium waste remained on the facility (Refs. 8, p. 38; 16 , p. 3). On at least two occasions, ground water from chromium

- contaminated wel ls W

- 2 or W

- 10 was pumped directly into the aeration lagoon (Ref. 8, p. 38). Sludge samples from the aeration lagoon were collected during multiple sampling events. Sludge samples collected in 1988, 1989, and 1990 indic a ted chromium concentrations at a

r ange of 190 to 3,200 mg/kg (Ref. 8, p. 102). Arsenic, barium, cadmium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, silver and zinc were also detected during these sampling events (Ref. 8, p. 102 ). A composite sample from the aeration lagoon
was collected duri ng the 1991 RI/FS (Ref. 8, p. 101). Arsenic was detected at a concentration of 6.7 mg/kg; chromium was detected in the sludge at a concentration of 398 mg/kg (Ref. 8, p. 102 ).

Textile processing in general, dyed fabrics by immersion in the dye and a
ch emical fixative, called a mordant that bound the dye pigment to the fiber (Ref.

10 , p. 5). Mordants were often metal salts containing iron, copper, or chromium.

Chromium as sodium dichromate or as a complex chromium chromate were the most
common in the U nited States (Refs. 10 , p. 5; 66

, Vol. 8, pp. 336

- 337 ). Other metals including copper, nickel, antimony, zinc, and barium, as well as stannates
and arsenates were used to dec r ease mordant solubility and help fix the mordant (Ref s. 10 , p. 5; 66

, Vol. 8, pp

. 284

- 387 ). Direct dyeing and many sulfur dyeing processes also used chromium and/or copper salts as an aftertreatment to improve fastness (Refs. 10 , p. 5; 22 , pp. 1

- 4; 66

, Vol. 8, pp. 284

- 387 ). During its 32

-SWOF

- Likelihood of Release 50 year operating history, Cone Mills prepared g rey goods and dyed grey goods, corduroy, denim, and cotton

- synthetic blends using a variety of processes (Ref.

8 , p. 13). In general, preparation of grey goods was originally accomplished by
batch

- type boil out and kiering processes; these processes were l ater replaced by continuous bleaching and mercerizing operations (Ref. 8 , p. 13). Dyeing was initially accomplished by batch

- type jigs and later by continuous ranges and a pigment range (Ref. 8 , p. 13). Mechanical, thermal, and chemical finishing operati ons were added in the 1960s (Ref. 8 , p. 13).

Due to the variety of goods processed at the plant, various types of dyes, including vats, sulfurs, reactives, dispersives, and naphthals were used. Hexavalent chromium (as sodium dichromate) was used as the oxidizing agent for sulphur dyes and vat

- type dyes (Ref s

. 8 , pp. 13, 34). Until 1975, hexavalent
chromium combined with acetic acid were used as the oxidation chemicals for a large part of the dyeing process (Refs. 8 , p. 34). Zinc, copper, and other

meta ls dyes were also used in the dyeing and finishing process (Ref. 8 , p. 13). The use of sodium dichromate and zinc as oxidizing agents ceased in the late 1970s (Ref. 8 , p. 13). In general, industry practices changed in response to environmental regulation s, as a result, metals in dyes were reduced to small amounts by the late 1970s (Ref. 8 , p. 13).

During the dye process, approximately 10 percent (%) of the chromium added to the washboxes would be absorbed into the cloth and the remaining 90% discharged t o the basement. Until the late 1950s, approximately one

- half of the hexavalent chromium applied to the dyed material was not consumed in the oxidation process and was discharged to the basement in the hexavalent form (Ref. 8 , p. 34). To
reduce the amount of hexavalent chromium wasted, a chromium recovery unit was installed in the late 1950s. Between 1957 and 1975, over 4,903,807 pounds of sodium dichromate was used at the facility (Ref. 8 , pp. 34

- 35).

Chromium is a naturally occurring element in the e nvironment; however, hexavalent
chromium (chromium VI) is generally produced by industrial processes (Ref. 67 , p. 1). Chromium can be released to the environment via leakage, poor storage, or improper disposal practices (Ref. 68 , p. 1). C hromium is found primarily in two
oxidation states in the environment : hexavalent chromium ( Cr (VI) ) and trivalent chromium ( Cr(III) ) (Ref. 68 , p. 1). Cr(VI) is relatively mobile and acutely toxic, mutagenic, teratogenic, and carcinogenic (Ref. 68 , p. 1). In contrast,

C r(III) has relatively low toxicity and is immobile under moderately alkaline to slightly acidic conditions (Ref. 68 , p. 1). Chromium in high concentrations imparts a yellow

- green color to water (Ref. 68 , p. 2)

.

A radial search for businesses within 1 mil e of the Cone Mills facility was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) (Ref. 69 , pp. 1

- 9). The EDR radial report searched multiple databases including, but not limited to, federal, state, tribal, local land records, emergency release repor ts, and EDR proprietary records (Ref. 69 , pp. 1

- 9).

According to the EDR radial report, there are few businesses within a 1

- mile
radius of the Cone Mills facility (Ref. 69 , pp. 1

- 9). EDR conducted a comprehensive review, which included several federal databases including: CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned (CERC

- NFRAP) sites, RCRA

- Large Quantity Generators (LQG) sites, and RCRA

- Small Quantity Generators (SQG) sites, and state databases including: Registry of Conditional Remedies (RCR), Abovegro und Storage Tank List (AST), and Waste Water Treatment Facilities Listings (NPDES)(Ref. 69

, Executive Summary

, pp. 3, 4).

Carolina Plating Works, Inc., located at 1101 W. Blue Ridge Drive, is 0.688 miles
southwest of the Cone Mills facility (Ref. 69

, Exe cutive Summary, p. 3 ). TheSWOF

- Likelihood of Release 51 facility is a RCRA

- large quantity generator that engages in the treatment, storage and/or disposal of hazardous waste (Ref. 69 , p. 29 ). The plating facility has had multiple compliance issues while in operation and states the

w aste code F006 for wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations as annual waste handled (Ref. 69 , pp. 5, 29

- 85 ).

Stop & Shop 4, located at 1100 N. Franklin Road, is 0.349 miles northwest of the
Cone Mills facility (Ref. 69

, Executive Summar y, p. 4 ). The currently inactive facility reportedly has abandoned storage tanks on the property containing petroleum products, such as gasoline and kerosene, however there are no reported chromium or chromium based chemicals kept at the facility (Ref. 69

, p p. 27, 28 ).

Hazardous Substances Released

Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese Zinc

Surface Water Observed Release Factor Value: 550SWOF

- Likelihood of Release 52 **4.1.2.1.2 Potential to Release**

Potential to release was not evaluated because an observed release t o surface water was established by chemical a nalysis ( s ee Section 4.1.2.1.1 of this HRS documentation record; Ref. 1, Section 4.1.2.1.2 ).SWOF/HFC

- Waste Characteristics 53 **4.1.3.2 Human Food Chain Threat Waste Characteristics** 

**4.1.3.2.1 Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation**

**Hazar dous** 

**Substance Source** 

**No. Toxicity** 

**Factor**
**Value Persistence** 

**Factor**
**Value*** **Bio**

  ** accumulation**

**Value  ** Toxicity/**
**Persistence/**
**Bioaccumulation**

**Factor Value**
**(Ref. 1, Table 4**

**- 16)**  **Ref.**

Arsenic 1, 2 , 3 10,000 1 5 5 x 10 4 1, Section 4.1. 3.2.1; 2, p. BI

- 1

Cadmium 1 10,000 1 5,000 5 x 10 7 1, Section 4.1.3.2.1; 2, p. BI

- 2

Chromium 1, 2, 3 10,000 1 5 5 x 10 4 1, Section 4.1.3.2.1; 2, p. BI

- 3

Copper 1, 2 , 3 0 1 500 0 1, Section 4.1.3.2.1; 2, p. BI

- 3

Lead 1, 2 , 3 1 0,000 1 5 5 x 10 4 1, Section 4.1.3.2.1; 2, p. BI

- 8

Manganese 1 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 10 8 1, Section 4.1.3.2.1; 2, p. BI

- 8

Total Mercury 1, 3 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 10 8 1, Section 4.1.3.2.1; 2, p. BI

- 8

Zinc 1, 3 10 1 5 5 1, Section 4.1.3.2.1; 2, p. BI

12

Notes:

* Persistence factor value for rivers

** Bioaccumulation factor value for Freshwater

Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 5 x 10 8SWOF/HFC

- Waste Characteristics 54 **4.1.3.2.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity**

**Source No. Source Type**  **Source Hazardous Waste Quantity** 

1 Surface impoundment 17,000

2 Landfill >0

3 Contaminated soil 15.03

Sum of Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Values: 17,015

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 10,000 (Ref. 1, Table 2

- 6)

**4.1.3.2.3 Calcula**  **tion of the Human Food Chain Threat Waste Characteristics**  **Factor Category Value**

Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value: 10,000 Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 10,000

Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100,000,00 0

(Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value) x
Bioaccumulation Factor Value (50,000) : 5 x 10 1 2

Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 1,000 (Ref. 1, Table 2

- 7) **4.1.3.3 Human Food Chain Threat Targets**

L angst on Creek and the Reedy River are both recreational fisheries ( Refs. 9, p.
34; 11, p. 4 ).

Actual Human Food Chain Contamination

**Sample ID Sample** 
**Medium Distance** 

**from PPE Hazardous** 

**Substance Bioaccumulation** 

**Factor Value Refs.** 

USF

- 013

- SW Surface

water 0.6 3 mile
downstream of PPE # 1 Chromium

Manganese

Zinc 5

50,000

5 2, pp. BI

3, BI

- 8,

BI

- 12; 9

, pp. 869,
881

- 883, 885, 920,

939 ; 60

, p. 21 ; 63, pp. 1

- 2

Notes:

USF

- US Finishing

SW

- Surface water sample

PPE

- Probable Point of Entry

* Sample lo cations are depicted on Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record.SWOF/HFC

- Targets 55 - Benthic Tissue: No essentially sessile benthic tissues were collected from the surface water pathway.

Level I Concentrations
No Level I concentrations were documented

.

Most Distant Level II Sample

Sample ID: USF

- 0 1 3

- SW Distance from the probable point of entry: 3,326.4 feet from PPE # 1 Reference 9 , pp. 869, 881

- 884, 885 , 922, 939 ; 60 , p. 29 ; 63

, pp. 1

- 2

Level II Fisheries

**Identity of Fishery Extent of Level II Fishery** 
**(Relat ive to PPE or Level I**  **Fishery) Refs.** 

Langston Creek 3,326.4 feet (from PPE#1) 3; 9, p. 34; 11, p. 3; 63 , pp. 1

- 2

Notes:

PPE

- Probable Point of Entry

**4.1.3.3.1 Food Chain Individual**

**Identity of Fishery Type of Surface**  **Water Body Dilution**  **Weight**
**(Ref. 1,**

**Table 4**

**- 13)**  **Refs.**

Langston Creek Small to
moderate stream 0.1 3

Mean annual flow of the Reedy River near the city of Greenville is 68.11 cubic feet per second (cfs) (Ref

. 70 ). The mean annual flow of Langston Creek is unknown, bu t is assumed to be less than the Reedy River.

Food Chain Individual Factor Value: 45 (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.3.3.1)

**4.1.3.3.2 Population**

**4.1.3.3.2.1 Level I Concentrations**

There are no Level I concentrations.SWOF/HFC

- Targets 56 **4.1.3.3.2.2 Level II Concentrations**

Level II Population Targets

**Identity of Fishery Annual** 
**Production**

**(pounds) References**  **Human Food Chain Population Value** 
**(Ref. 1, Table 4**

**- 18)** 

Langston Creek >0 3; 9 , p. 34 ; 11 , p. 3 0.03

Specific annual production information is not availa ble for Langston Creek ; however, because this portion of Langston Creek is fished, the lowest non

- zero value for population was used.

Sum of Level II Human Food Chain Population Values: 0.03

Level II Concentrations Factor Value: 0.03 (Ref. 1, Section 4 .1.3.3.2.2)SWOF/HFC

- Targets 57 **4.1.3.3.2.3 Potential Human Food Chain Contamination**

Potential human food chain contamination is being scored for the portion of Langston Creek that is not scored as Level II and for the Reedy River.

Potential Population Targets

**Identi ty of**  **Fishery Annual** 
**Production**

**(pounds) Type of** 

**Surface Water Body**  **Average**
**Annual Flow**
**(cfs) Refs.**  **Population**
**Value (P i**  **)**

**(Ref. 1,**

**Table 4**

**- 18)**  **Dilution Weight (D**  **i )** 

**(Ref. 1,**

**Table 4**

**- 13)**  **P i**  **x D i** 

Langston
Creek and Reedy River >0 Small to
moderate

stream Greater than
10 to 100 1, Section

4.1.2.3.1;
3 0.03 0.1 0.003

Sum of P i x D i : 0.00 3 (Sum of P i x D i )/10: 0.000 3

Potential Human Food Chain Contamination Factor Value: 0.000 3 (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.3.3.2.3)SWOF/ENV

- Waste Characteristics 58 **4.1.4.2 Environmen tal Threat Waste Characteristics** 

**4.1.4.2.1 Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation**

**Hazardous**

**Substance Source** 

**No. Ecosystem**  **Toxicity Factor**

**Value** ******* **Persistence**

**Factor**
**Value*** **Environmental**
**Bioaccumulation**

**Value  ** Ecosystem Toxi** **city/**
**Persistence/Env.**
**Bioaccumulation**

**Factor Value**
**(Ref. 1, Table 4**

**- 21)**  **Ref.**

Arsenic 1, 2 , 3 10 1 5,000 5 x 10 4 1, Section

4.1.4.2.1; 2, p. BI

- 1

Cadmium 1 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 10 8 1, Section

4.1.4.2.1; 2, p. BI

- 2

Chromium 1, 2

, 3 10,000 1 500 5 x 10 6 1, Section

4.1.4.2.1; 2, p. BI

- 3

Copper 1, 2 , 3 1,000 1 5,000 5 x 10 6 1, Section

4.1.4.2.1; 2, p. BI

- 3

Lead 1, 2 , 3 1,000 1 50,000 5 x 10 7 1, Section

4.1.4.2.1; 2, p. BI

- 8

Manganese 1 0 1 50,000 0 1, Sec tion

4.1.4.2.1; 2, p. BI

- 8

Total Mercury 1, 3 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 10 8 1, Section

4.1.4.2.1; 2, p. BI

- 8

Zinc 1, 3 10 1 50,000 5 x 10 5 1, Section

4.1.4.2.1; 2, p. BI

- 12SWOF/ENV

- Waste Characteristics 59 Notes:

* Persistence factor value for Rivers

** Bioaccumul ation facto r value for Freshwater *** Ecosystem toxicity factor value for freshwater

Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/Environmental Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 5 x 10 8 (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.4.2.1.4)SWOF/ENV

- Waste Characteristics 60 **4.1.4.2.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity** 

**Source No. Source Typ**  **e Source Hazardous Waste Quantity** 

1 Surface impoundment 17,000

2 Landfill >0

3 Contaminated soil 15.03

Sum of Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Values: 17,015

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 10,000 (Ref. 1, Table 2

- 6)

**4.1.4.2 .3.**  **Calculation of Environmental Threat Waste Characteristics Factor**  **Category Value**

Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value: 10,000 Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 10,000

Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value x Hazardous Waste Quantit y Factor Value: 100,000,000

(Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value (10,000) x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value (10,000) ) x Environmental Bioaccumulation Factor Value (50,000) : 5 x 10 12

Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 1,000 ( Ref. 1, Section 4.1.4.2.3 and Table 2

- 7)SWOF/ENV

- Targets 61 **4.1.4.3 Environmental Threat Targets**

No surface water samples were collected from environmentally sensitive areas ; therefore, Level I concentrations could not be established.

**4.1.4.3.1 Sensitive Environments**

**4.1.4.3.1.1. Level I Concentrations**

No Level I concentrations could be documented as no surface water samples were
collected from sensitive environments or wetlands.

**4.1.4.3.1.2. Level II Concentrations**

Level II Sensitive Environment Targets

There are no non

- wetland Level II sensitive environments within the 15

- mile TDL.

Level II Wetland Perimeter

Sediment samples USF

- 017

- SE and USF

- 018

- SE, collected within the wetland area contiguous to Langston Creek along the southern border of the wetland a rea , are the most distant sample s collected within Langston Creek wetlands (Ref. 9 , pp. 16, 17, 24

- 25, 884). The wetlands along Langston Creek are classified as palustrine, scrub

- shrub, broad

- leaved deciduous/needle

- leaved evergreen, and temporarily flood ed (Ref. 9, p. 16). Approximately 2,0 08 feet of wetland perimeter w as determined to be affected by Level II concentrations (Refs. 1,
Table 4

- 24; 3; 64 , pp. 1

- 2).

**Wetland Wetland**  **Perimeter (miles)**  **References**

Onsite Wetland 0

. 38 miles 9 , pp. 16, 1 7, 25, 16, 869, 881

- 882, 884; 60

, pp. 3

- 6 ;

Sum of Level II Wetland Perimeter : 0. 38 miles Wetlands Value (Ref. 1, Table 4

- 24): 25

Sum of Level II Sensitive Environments Value + Wetlands Value: 25

Level II Concentrations Factor Value: 25 (Ref. 1, Sect ion 4.1.4.3.1.2)SWOF/ENV

- Targets 62 **4.1.4.3.1.3 Potential Contamination**

Potential Sensitive Environment Targets

There are no other non

- wetland sensitive environments located within the 15

- mile TDL.

Potential Wetland Frontages

**Type of Surface Water Body**  **Wetland Front age**  **(miles) References**  **Wetlands Value (Ref. 1, Table 4** 

**- 24)** 

Reedy River (Small to moderate creek) 3.81 60 , pp. 3, 4; Figure 4 of

this HRS
documentation
record 100

**Type of Surface Water Body**  **Sum of**
**Sensitive**
**Environments**
**Values (S j**  **) Wetland** 
**Frontage Value (W**  **j )**  **Dilution Weight (D**  **j )** 

**(Ref. 1,**

**Table 4**

**- 13)**  **D j**  **(W j**  **+ S j**  **)**

Reedy River (Small to moderate creek) 0 100 0.1 10

Sum of D j (W j + S j ): 10 (Sum of D j (W j + S j ))/10: 1

Potential Contamination Factor Value: 1