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 04/28/2005

Expanded Site Inspection Update 11/15/2006

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 ground water migration pathway, soil exposure pathway, and air migration 

pathway were not evaluated.
1

HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD

Name of Facility: US Finishing/Cone Mills

EPA Region: 4 Date Prepared: March 2011

Street Address of Facility*: 3335 Old Buncombe 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 Priorities

List (NPL) listing. EPA lists national priorities among the known "releases or 

threatened releases" of hazardous substances; 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 release 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 

boundaries 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 Water Pathway Not Scored

Soil Exposure Pathway Not Scored

Surface Water Pathway 100.00

HRS SITE SCORE 50.00
2

WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING HRS SCORE

 S S2 

1. Ground water Migration Pathway Score (Sgw)

(from Table 3-1, line 13)

 NS NS_

2a. Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration 

Component

(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 (Ssw)

Enter the larger of lines 2a and 2b as the 

pathway score.

 100 10,000

3. Soil Exposure Pathway Score (Ss)

(from Table 5-1, line 22)

 NS NS 

4. Air Migration Pathway Score (Sa)

(from Table 6-1, line 12)

 NS NS 

5. Total of Sgw2 + Ssw2 + Ss

2 + Sa2 _10,000

6. HRS Score

Divide the value on line 5 by 4 and take 

the square root

 50.00 

NS - Not Scored

Reference 1
3

SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORESHEET

REF. 1, TABLE 4-1

Factor Categories and Factors Maximum 

Value

Value 

Assigned

DRINKING WATER THREAT

Likelihood 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 NS 
4

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 maximum 

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 108 _

16. Hazardous Waste Quantity 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 Contamination b 0.0003 

 19d. Population (lines 19a + 19b + 19c) b 0.0303 

20. Targets (lines 18 + 19d) b 45.0303 

Human Food Chain Threat Score:

21. Human Food Chain Threat Score

([lines 14 x 17 x 20]/82,500, subject to a 

maximum of 100) 

100.00 100.00 
5

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/Persistence/

Bioaccumulation a 5 x 108 _

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 26a + 26b + 26c)

b _26 

27. Targets (value from 26d) b 26 

Environmental Threat Score:

28. Environmental Threat Score

([lines 22 x 25 x 27]/82,500, subject to a 

maximum of 60) 

60.00 60.00 

SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORE FOR A WATERSHED

29. Watershed Scorec

(lines 13 + 21 + 28, subject to a maximum of 

100)

100.00 100.00 

SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORE

30. Component Score (Sof)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 

w 
 United States Environmental Protection Agency

US FINISHING / CONE MILLS

GREENVILLE, GREENVILLE

COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA

EPA ID No. SCD003358744

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 MILLS

GREENVILLE, GREENVILLE

COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA

EPA ID No. SCD003358744

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

Former Northern NR-008-SE

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-SO
 United States Environmental Protection Agency

US FINISHING / CONE MILLS

GREENVILLE, GREENVILLE

COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA

EPA ID No. SCD003358744

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
10

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 pages. 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 Quadrangle 

Map of South Carolina: Greenville, 2006; Paris Mountain, 1983. Scale 1: 

24,000. 1 page. 

4. Greenville County GIS. Property Search. Tax Map Numbers 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 Division. 

Consent Decree. Department of Health and Environmental Control (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. Accessed 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) Specialist, 

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 Mills (Old Union Bleachery) Site. 

December 20, 2004. 347 pages.

11. OTIE. Project Note to File. Subject: Expanded Site Investigation (ESI) 

Logbook notes for US Finishing. August 21, 2010. 108 pages.

12. Jonathan McInnis, Manager, SCDHEC Bureau of Land and Waste Management. Email to Alexis McKinnon, OTIE. Subject: Cone 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 District, 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, Bryant, Marion, & Johnson. Letter to 

W.T. Linton, Executive Director, South Carolina Board of Health, Water 
11

Pollution Control Authority. 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 Plants 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. Email to Alexis McKinnon, Senior Project Scientist, Region IV START, OTIE. 

Subject: Cone Mills/US Finishing Question. August 19, 2010. 2 pages.

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 Progress 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 Johnnie Smith, et 

al, WPCA, to W.T. Linton, Executive Director, WPCA. Subject: Report of 

Conditions in Reedy River in the Vicinity 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-Water 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: Chromium Problem, Langston Creek. 

September 24, 1982. 1 page.

33. Arthur J. Toompas, Engineering Department, Cone Mills Corporation. Letter 

to Andy Yasinac, P.E, SCDHEC. Subject: Chromium Problem, Langston Creek. 

November 19, 1982. 1 page.
12

34. Alexis McKinnon, OTIE. Project Note to File. Subject: Ground Water 

Monitoring Reports 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: Union 

Bleachery, Greenville, South Carolina. March 24, 1993. 4 pages.

37. Aquatic Analysts. Macroinvertebrate Assessment of Langston Creek at the 

US Finishing Plant, Greenville, South Carolina. October 1985. 18 pages.

38. Allison Ranson, Appalachia II, EQC, SCDHEC. 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 

Business. 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 Corporation. 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 Pollution Control Authority, 

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 

Management 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 Agricultural Division, Bureau of 

Wastewater and Stream Quality Control, 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 

from 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, MultiConcentration, 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. Douglas Fraley, GIS Specialist, OTIE. Project Note to File. Subject: 

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 Office. Greenville-Spartanburg, SC. 

The Greenville, South Carolina, Flash Flood of 29 July 2004. Accessed 

online at http://www.erh.noaa.gov/gsp/localdat/cases/2004/29JulyReedyFlood/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, Project 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 Reservoir. 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: Northern 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/hrsres/fact/docoroc.pdf . 18

pages.

62. Alexis McKinnon, OTIE. Project Note to File. Subject: Northern Reservoir 

(Source 3) Contaminated Soil Area Calculations. January 27, 2011. 2

pages. 

63. Alexis McKinnon, OTIE. Project Note to File. Subject: Distance to 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. Volume 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, Cone Mills. November 5, 2008. 129 pages.
14

70. Alexis McKinnon, OTIE. Project Note to File. Subject: Reedy River Stream 

Flow Data. August 27, 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 documentation 

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 

documentation record) (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 facility 

is situated at 34o 52′ 59.852′′ North latitude and 82o 25′ 34.69′′ 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 

constructed to house Union Bleachery employees and other residents, to the north 

by Old Buncombe Road, and to the south across the Reedy River, by a residential 

neighborhood (Refs. 3; 4, pp. 1-8, p. 14). Two reservoirs utilized by the 

facility during the operational 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 and southeast by 

residential property; to the northeast by woodlands and to the west by Old 

Buncombe Road (Refs. 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 topography 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 area of the main plant, slopes towards Langston 

Creek; the area surrounding the aeration lagoon 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 surrounding 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 (ft2

) industrial 

building that includes a basement and two floors partially destroyed by a 2003 

fire; a warehouse, 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 in 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 remediation 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 by the facility; and a former brine pit, used for the storage of brine 

solution (Refs. 8, pp. 33-34; 10, pp. 9, 10). A dam on Langston Creek creates 

the Langston Creek impoundment, an outfall from the plant directs surface water 

runoff from the plant into the impoundment. Prior to 1953, all non-dye waste was 

discharged into the basement onto bare ground or into sumps which then migrated 
16

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 

directed water to the former Northern Reservoir (Refs. 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 aeration 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 

gallons 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 property 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 1957, 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 2004, Piper 

Properties purchased approximately 19 acres along the Reedy River from Cone Mills 

(Refs. 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).

Operational 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 material (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 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 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. 13, 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 trench 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 tank 
17

(Ref. 8, pp. 54-56). The chromium distribution lines continued 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 the 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 (Ref. 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 Reservoirs (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 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 4th

shutdown (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). 

Investigations and Regulatory History

On November 17, 1980, Cone Mills submitted a Hazardous Permit Application, 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 

(SCDHEC) issued a Memorandum documenting the Special Survey as conducted by the 

Greenville Monitoring Section on May 2 through 13, 1981 (Refs. 14, p. 1; 27, p. 

1; 28, pp. 1-3). The survey area consisted of Langston Creek upstream of the 

facility to just downstream 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 downstream 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 by 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 contamination 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, and 
18

10) at average concentrations 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 

indicated chromium concentrations increasing with depth to the weathered rock 

(Ref. 31, p. 3). The preliminary conclusions 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 submitted 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 chromium 

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 1980 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, despite the sale of 

the property (Ref. 35, pp. 1-2). 

A macroinvertebrate assessment was conducted in Langston Creek for Cone Mills by 

Aquatics Analysts 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 

concentrations between 3.77 and 8.97 micrograms per gram (μg/g) in the organs and 

18.16 to 29.5 μg/g in the intestines (Refs. 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 concentration 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, pp. 4, 5).

From 1987 through 1990, Rogers and Callcott, Engineers, Inc. (R&C), joined by 

GeoTrans, Inc., (GeoTrans) 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 floodplain dump, the basement 

of the main plant, the area of the chromium tank and the chromium supply and 
19

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 beneath 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 samples 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 concentrations 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 and 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, and 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 program 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 facility 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 tons 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 containing 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, after 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 recovery 

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 Bleachery) 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 site reconnaissance was conducted 

in June and July 2004; sampling activities were 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). Metals and PCBs were 

detected in the soils and sediments (Ref. 10, pp. 4, 48-313). Barium, chromium, 

iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, and vanadium were detected in ground water 

samples collected downgradient of the Langston Creek floodplain and the sludge 
20

settling basin (Ref. 10, pp. 6-7, 48-313). Based on the findings of the ESI, the 

facility was given 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 brine 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 main 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 will 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 system 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 

assessment activities on behalf of the SCDHEC to further evaluate the potential 

threat to human health and the environment (Ref. 41, pp. 5, 6). A total of 12 

surface water samples were collected, eight from Langston Creek and four from the 

former Northern Reservoir; 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 captured 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 surface 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 investigation, as well as three wetland sediment samples 

(Ref. 9, pp. 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 from 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, sweeping and/or washing 

(Ref. 13, pp. 7, 12). Post-removal, concentrations 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 those 
21

areas to remove the remaining chromium contamination (Ref. 13, pp. 11-12). 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 CERCLA (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 (Ref. 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 completion 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 removal 

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 (Ref. 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 extensive (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 submitted 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 soil was removed, and 

confirmation samples collected, from all areas previously identified (Ref. 43, 

pp. 6-16). Clean 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 to 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 property 

(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 of the source: Aeration Lagoon Number of the source: 1

HRS Source Type: Surface impoundment

Description of the Source:

The aeration lagoon (also called the dye lagoon, wastewater lagoon, pretreatment 

lagoon, and later the aeration/equalization basin) 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 equalize 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 (Refs. 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 recharge (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 southwesterly 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 sludge cleaned out during the July 4th 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 facility (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). The property is currently in receivership

and the aeration lagoon is no longer in operation (Ref. 21, p. 1). 

On May 9, 1975, a leak 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). Water 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 flowed into the Reedy River, through 

an abandoned, but uncapped, 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 indicated 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 aeration 
Source No. 1

Source Characterization

23

lagoon was collected during the 1991 RI/FS (Ref. 8, p. 102). 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). 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 documentation record for 

the location of the source.

2.2.2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOURCE

- 2004 ESI

The following samples were collected during the 2004 ESI conducted by SCDHEC. The 

samples were black, sandy sludge within the aeration lagoon (CM-019-SO) and black, 

silty soil along the dam of the aeration pond, in an area stained from repeated 

overflow (CM-020-SO) (Refs. 10, p. 9; 9, p. 547; 11, pp. 81-82). All samples were 

collected in accordance with the SCDHEC Bureau of Land and Waste Management 

Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) and the USEPA Region 4, Science and Ecosystem 

Support System (SESD) Environmental Investigations Standard Operating Procedures 

and Quality Assurance Manual (EISOPQAM) (Ref. 9, pp. 524, 544; 49). Samples were 

submitted to ChemTech 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/QC) information for these samples is located in Reference 10, pp. 314-328. 

See Figure 3 this HRS documentation record for sample locations. 

Sample

ID Sample Type Date

Hazardous

Substance

Hazardous 

Substance 

Concentration

(mg/kg) 

Contract 

Required 

Quantitation

Limit (CRQL)

(mg/kg) References

CM019-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

CM020-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

 mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogram

 
Source No. 1

Source Characterization

24

List of Hazardous Substances Associated with Source 1:

Arsenic

Cadmium

Chromium

Copper

Lead

Manganese

Total Mercury

Zinc

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 Reedy River 

during 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 multiple overflow 

events. 

10 1, 

Section 

4.1.2.1.

2.1.1, 

Table 4-

2; 10, 

p. 9; 

24, pp. 

1-2; 48, 

pp. 1, 2
Source 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 quantity.

Hazardous 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.

Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Value: Not Scored (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 gallons (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 dimensions)

Units

(yd3/gal) References

Surface 

Impoundment

8.5 million gallons 0.005 yd3

/1 gallon* = 

42,500 yd3

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 / gallon

Sum: 42,500 yd3

Equation for Assigning Value (Ref. 1, Table 2-5): 42,500 yd3 ÷ 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, Section 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: 17,000
Source 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: Landfill

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 4th shutdown (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 1975 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 field 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 surface in the dump area (Ref. 10, p. 6; 11, pp. 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 documentation record

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 samples 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 ChemTech 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 this HRS documentation record for sample locations. 

 

-Background

Sample

ID Sample Type Date

Hazardous

Substance

Hazardous 

Substance 

Concentration

(mg/kg) 

Contract 

Required 

Quantitation

Limit (CRQL)

(mg/kg) References

CM018-SOSoil 8/17/2004 Arsenic 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

CM035-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 

CM037-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 kilogram
Source No. 2

Source Characterization

28

List of Hazardous 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 is 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 

migration 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, 5
Source 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.

Hazardous 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.

Hazardous 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 volume.

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 Quantity Value

Highest assigned value assigned from Ref. 1, Table 2-5: >0

Reference: 1, Section 2.4.2.2
Source 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 former Northern Reservoir other than the minor amount of water 

received through direct precipitation and overland flow (Refs. 3; 9, pp. 6, 7; 43, 

p. 14). Intakes in the Langston Creek impoundment were used to fill and maintain 

the approximately 16-acre former 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 water 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 

was 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 (Refs. 9, p. 9; 11, p. 10). 

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

recreational use as recently as 2004 (Refs. 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 (Refs. 10, p. 8; 11, pp. 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 (Refs. 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, pp.

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 discharged 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 facility, 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 

documentation record 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 

(Refs. 9, p. 546; 10, pp. 17, 24; 11, pp. 60, 61, 64). The source sample was 

compared to background soil sample CM-018-SO, collected in an area upgradient of 

the facility. The 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, (Refs. 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 documentation record for sample locations. 

-Background Sample

Sample

ID Sample Type Date

Hazardous

Substance

Hazardous 

Substance 

Concentration

(mg/kg) 

Contract 

Required 

Quantitation

Limit (CRQL)

(mg/kg) References

CM018-SOSoil 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

CM006-SESediment 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 kilogram
Source 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 (Refs. 10, p. 7). The emergency overflow 

allowed 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 feed into the former Northern Reservoir, which has a limited area of 

drainage (Refs. 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 September 2001 EISOPQAM update (Refs. 9, p. 882; 

41, pp. 7-9; 49). Sample locations are depicted in Figure 3 of this HRS 

documentation record.

The samples below were analyzed in accordance with the USEPA SW-846 guidance 

entitled Test Methods for Evaluating Solid 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

USF001-SESediment 6/21/2005 Arsenic 0.60UJa 1 9, pp. 

895, 933; 

50, p. 2 Chromium 16 1

Copper 5.7Jb 2.5

Lead 7.7 1

Total 

Mercury 0.13U 0.1

Zinc 30Jc 6

Notes:

a - The result is qualified “UJ” 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 adjusting (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 

adjusting (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 at or above reporting limit.

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

limit is an estimate.

USF - US Finishing; SE - Sediment sample
Source No. 3

Source Characterization

34

-Source Samples

Sample ID Hazardous Substance

Concentration

(units)

Practical

Quantitation 

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, 61

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

NR-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/kg
Source 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

Zinc

2.2.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 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 runoff 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 available 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, NR002-SE, NR-009-SE, NR-008-SE, NR-007-SE, NR-003-SE, NR-005-SE, NR-004-SE, and NR011-SE, the area of contaminated soil within the area of the former Northern 

Reservoir was determined to be 511,035 square feet (ft2

). 

Source Type Description Units

(ft2) References

Contaminated 

Soil

Contaminated soil 

within the area of the 

former Northern 

Reservoir 511,035

41, pp. 55-79; 

62, pp. 1-2

Area Assigned Value: 511,035 ft2 ÷ 34,000 = 15.03 (Ref. 1, Section 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: 15.03 
Source Summary

Source Characterization

37

SUMMARY 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

Overland/

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 Quantity Values: 17,015

Notes:

NS- Not Scored

Reference 1, Section 2.4.2.2

Other Possible Sources:

Other possible sources are present at the facility. See Figure 2 of this HRS 

documentation record for a map of these potential sources. However, insufficient 

data 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 supernatant 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 4th 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, dye waste was discharged 

directly into the basement (Refs. 8, p. 36; 13, p. 6). The eastern 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, with 
Source Summary

Source Characterization

38

a slope from north to south (Ref. 13, p. 6). The western half of the 

basement contained a wastewater conveyance 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 

(Refs. 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 year, on July 4th, 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 

west 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 (Ref. 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 aeration 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 basement 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 collected 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), and 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 beneath 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 possible

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 processes (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 feet 
Source Summary

Source Characterization

39

of rainwater remained in the 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 there 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, soil 

contamination is still present throughout the facility property, as stated 

by the 2005 FGI letter to SCDHEC on behalf of US Finishing (Ref. 23, pp.

1, 5). 
40 SWOF-Likelihood of Release

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

Surface 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). The eastern portion of the main property slopes toward the eastsoutheast, 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 plugging of the pipes and 

ditches of the basement with lint and cloth, the floodwaters were directed back 

into Langston Creek (Ref. 8, pp. 13, 14). Surface water runoff from the western 

portion of the plant flowed through the basement and into the ditch to Langston 

Creek until 1965 (Ref. 8, p. 14). After 1965, stormwater was directed to the 

aeration lagoon (Refs. 8, p. 13; 39). The eastern boundary of the property is 

the floodplain for Langston Creek and consists of multiple small, unnamed, nonperennial tributaries 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 

aeration lagoon (Source 1) is on a topographic 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). The area surrounding the Northwestern Reservoir slopes 

towards the Reedy River (Refs. 3). 

Langston Creek is a small tributary of the Reedy River, 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 originally 

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 miles 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 Creek flows through and adjacent to this wetland for 0.14 
41 SWOF-Likelihood of Release

mile (Refs. 3; 63, pp. 1-2; 64, pp. 1-2). The wetland is southeast of the 

aeration lagoon; PPE #2, overland 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 pathway 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 

direction 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 record (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 overland flow path from the aeration lagoon (Source 1) 

to the Reedy River; overland 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, classified 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 1976, 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 southsoutheasterly 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 Park, Reedy River Falls Park, and the 

Lake Conestee Nature Park (Ref. 65, p. 1-3). See Reference 3 of this HRS 

documentation record for an illustration of the 15-mile surface water TDL.

Chromium 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 2003 destroyed much of the main facility (Ref. 19, pp. 1-2). Fifteen to 
42 SWOF-Likelihood of Release

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

4.1.2.1 Likelihood of Release

4.1.2.1.1 Observed Release

Chemical Analysis

- 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 (Refs. 9, pp. 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 (Refs. 9, pp. 

524, 544; 49). Samples were submitted to Bonner Analytical Testing (Bonner), an 

EPA CLP laboratory, for EPA TCL and TAL parameters (Refs. 9, pp. 524, 544, 895-

896, 925; 50, pp. 4-5). QA/QC information for these samples is located in 

Reference 9, pages 931-941. See Figure 3 this HRS documentation record for 

sample locations. Background 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 USF018-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, 

881-882, 

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-016-

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. 

19-20
43 SWOF-Likelihood of Release

Sample ID

Hazardous 

Substance Concentration*

Contract 

Required 

Quantitation 

Limit (CRQL)

Reference

USF-001-SW Chromium 1.5Ja (1.95)μg/L 10 μg/L 9, pp. 896, 933; 

50, p. 2; 60, p. 

24 Manganese 52 μg/L 15 μg/L

Zinc 5.3Jb(6.837)μg/L 60 μg/L

USF-001-SE Arsenic 0.60UJc mg/kg 1 mg/kg 9, pp. 895, 933; 

50, p. 2; 60, p. 

Chromium 16 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 24

Copper 5.7Jd 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 30Je mg/kg 6 mg/kg

USF-016-SE Arsenic 6.3Jf mg/kg 1 mg/kg 9, pp. 925, 940; 

50, p. 2; 60, p. 

Cadmium 0.91UJ 19, 20 g mg/kg 0.5 mg/kg

Chromium 54 mg/kg 1 mg/kg

Copper 21Jh 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, 18).

b - 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

(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 “UJ” 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 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 

adjusting (Refs. 9, p. 895, 933; 61, pp. 1-9, 18).

f - The result is qualified “J” due to the PE sample recovery 

greater 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).
44 SWOF-Likelihood of Release

g - The result is qualified “UJ” 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. 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 limit.

μg/L - Micrograms per liter

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

an estimate.

USF - US Finishing

SE - Sediment sample
45 SWOF-Likelihood of Release

- 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 documentation record for sample locations.

Sample 

ID

Sample 

Medium Sample Location Distance from PPE

Depth

(inch

es)

Date Reference

USF013-SWSurface 

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

USF014-SWSurface 

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

USF011-SESediment 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

USF013-SESediment 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

USF014-SESediment 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

USF015-SESediment 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

USF017-SESediment 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. 26; 

63, pp. 1-2
46 SWOF-Likelihood of Release

Sample 

ID

Sample 

Medium Sample Location Distance from PPE

Depth

(inch

es)

Date Reference

USF018-SESediment 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)

REFERENCES

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 Chromium 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 49Ja (34.03)mg/kg 1 mg/kg

USF-015-SE Arsenic 1.9Jb (1.09)mg/kg 1 mg/kg

9, pp. 

923, 939; 

50, p. 2

USF-017-SE Cadmium 1.6Jc (1.13)mg/kg 0.5 mg/kg 9, pp. 

926, 940; 

Chromium 550 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 50, p. 2
47 SWOF-Likelihood of Release

SAMPLE ID HAZARDOUS 

SUBSTANCE

CONCENTRATION

(UNITS)

CONTRACT REQUIRED 

QUANTITATION LIMIT

(CRQL)

REFERENCES

USF-018-SE Arsenic 370Jd (212.64)mg/kg 1 mg/kg 9, pp. 

927, 940; 

Cadmium 3.4J 50, p. 2 e (2.41)mg/kg 0.5 mg/kg

Copper 100Jf (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 (49J mg/kg ÷ 1.44 = 34.03 mg/kg) (Refs. 9, 

pp. 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, pp. 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 (1.6J mg/kg ÷ 1.41 = 1.13 mg/kg) (Refs. 9, pp. 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 (370J mg/kg ÷ 1.74 = 212.64 mg/kg) (Refs. 9, pp. 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 

factor (3.4J mg/kg ÷ 1.41 = 2.41) (Refs. 9, pp. 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 factor

(100J mg/kg ÷ 1.22 = 81.97 mg/kg) (Refs. 9, pp. 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 sample

SW - Surface water sample
48 SWOF-Likelihood of Release

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 samples 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 

facility 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 samples (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 (Refs. 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 (Refs. 3; 8, p. 15). At the aeration lagoon, located 

south of the main facility, the property slopes in a southeast direction toward 

the confluence of Langston Creek and the Reedy River (Refs. 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 approximately 400 

linear feet (Refs. 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 outside 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 Mills determined that the contamination was present due to 

chromium leaks entering ground water, migrating in an easterly direction, and 

entering the surface water through seeps and springs in the floodplain (Ref. 8, 

p. 22). 

An intake within the impoundment 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. 10, 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 Northern 
49 SWOF-Likelihood of Release

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 and 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, pp. 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 collect 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 basement 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 events 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 system 

(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 either 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 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 4th 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 

chromium waste remained on the facility (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). Sludge samples from 

the aeration lagoon were collected during multiple sampling events. Sludge 

samples collected in 1988, 1989, and 1990 indicated 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 these 

sampling events (Ref. 8, p. 102). A composite sample from the aeration lagoon 

was collected during 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 

chemical 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 United 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 decrease mordant solubility and help fix the mordant 

(Refs. 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-
50 SWOF-Likelihood of Release

year operating history, Cone Mills prepared grey 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 later 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 

operations 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 (Refs. 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 

metals 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 regulations, 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 to 

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 environment; 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). Chromium 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, 

Cr(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 mile 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 reports, 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), Aboveground 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, Executive Summary, p. 3). The 
51 SWOF-Likelihood of Release

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 

waste 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 Summary, 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, pp. 27, 28).

Hazardous Substances Released

Arsenic

Cadmium

Chromium

Copper

Lead

Manganese

Zinc

Surface Water Observed Release Factor Value: 550
52 SWOF-Likelihood of Release

4.1.2.1.2 Potential to Release

Potential to release was not evaluated because an observed release to surface 

water was established by chemical analysis (see Section 4.1.2.1.1 of this HRS 

documentation record; Ref. 1, Section 4.1.2.1.2).
53 SWOF/HFC-Waste Characteristics

4.1.3.2 Human Food Chain Threat Waste Characteristics

4.1.3.2.1 Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation

Hazardous 

Substance

Source

No.

Toxicity 

Factor 

Value

Persistence 

Factor 

Value*

Bioaccumulation 

Value**

Toxicity/

Persistence/

Bioaccumulation

Factor Value

(Ref. 1, Table 4-16) Ref.

Arsenic 1, 2, 3 10,000 1 5 5 x 104 1, Section 4.1.3.2.1; 2, p. BI-1

Cadmium 1 10,000 1 5,000 5 x 107 1, Section 4.1.3.2.1; 2, p. BI-2

Chromium 1, 2, 3 10,000 1 5 5 x 104 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 10,000 1 5 5 x 104 1, Section 4.1.3.2.1; 2, p. BI-8

Manganese 1 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 108 1, Section 4.1.3.2.1; 2, p. BI-8

Total Mercury 1, 3 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 108 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. BI12

Notes:

* Persistence factor value for rivers

** Bioaccumulation factor value for Freshwater

Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 5 x 108
54 SWOF/HFC-Waste Characteristics

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 Calculation 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: 100,000,000

(Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value) x 

Bioaccumulation Factor Value (50,000): 5 x 1012

Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 1,000

(Ref. 1, Table 2-7) 

4.1.3.3 Human Food Chain Threat Targets

Langston 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

0.63 mile 

downstream 

of PPE #1

Chromium

Manganese

Zinc

5

50,000

5

2, pp. BI3, 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 locations are depicted on Figure 3 of this HRS documentation record.
55 SWOF/HFC-Targets

- 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-013-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

(Relative 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, but 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.
56 SWOF/HFC-Targets

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 available 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)
57 SWOF/HFC-Targets

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

Identity of 

Fishery

Annual 

Production

(pounds)

Type of 

Surface Water

Body

Average 

Annual Flow 

(cfs)

Refs.

Population

Value (Pi)

(Ref. 1,

Table 4-18)

Dilution

Weight (Di)

(Ref. 1,

Table 4-13) Pi x Di

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 Pi x Di: 0.003

(Sum of Pi x Di)/10: 0.0003 

Potential Human Food Chain Contamination Factor Value: 0.0003 (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.3.3.2.3)
58 SWOF/ENV-Waste Characteristics

4.1.4.2 Environmental 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 Toxicity/

Persistence/Env.

Bioaccumulation

Factor Value

(Ref. 1, Table 4-21) Ref.

Arsenic 1, 2, 3 10 1 5,000 5 x 104 1, Section 

4.1.4.2.1; 

2, p. BI-1

Cadmium 1 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 108 1, Section 

4.1.4.2.1; 

2, p. BI-2

Chromium 1, 2, 3 10,000 1 500 5 x 106 1, Section 

4.1.4.2.1; 

2, p. BI-3

Copper 1, 2, 3 1,000 1 5,000 5 x 106 1, Section 

4.1.4.2.1; 

2, p. BI-3

Lead 1, 2, 3 1,000 1 50,000 5 x 107 1, Section 

4.1.4.2.1; 

2, p. BI-8

Manganese 1 0 1 50,000 0 1, Section 

4.1.4.2.1; 

2, p. BI-8

Total Mercury 1, 3 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 108 1, Section 

4.1.4.2.1; 

2, p. BI-8

Zinc 1, 3 10 1 50,000 5 x 105 1, Section 

4.1.4.2.1; 

2, p. BI-12
59 SWOF/ENV-Waste Characteristics

Notes:

* Persistence factor value for Rivers

** Bioaccumulation factor value for Freshwater

*** Ecosystem toxicity factor value for freshwater

Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/Environmental Bioaccumulation Factor Value: 5 x 108 (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.4.2.1.4) 
60 SWOF/ENV-Waste Characteristics

4.1.4.2.2 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) 

4.1.4.2.3. 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 Quantity 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 1012

Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 1,000

(Ref. 1, Section 4.1.4.2.3 and Table 2-7) 
61 SWOF/ENV-Targets

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 area, are 

the most distant samples 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 flooded (Ref. 9, p. 16). Approximately 2,008 feet of wetland 

perimeter was 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, 17, 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, Section 4.1.4.3.1.2)
62 SWOF/ENV-Targets

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 Frontage 

(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 (Sj)

Wetland

Frontage 

Value (Wj)

Dilution

Weight (Dj)

(Ref. 1,

Table 4-13) Dj(Wj + Sj)

Reedy River 

(Small to 

moderate creek)

0 100 0.1 10

Sum of Dj(Wj + Sj): 10

(Sum of Dj(Wj + Sj))/10: 1

Potential Contamination Factor Value: 1