. , - - , . , • • • , .UMTH3 STATES ENVWDNMENTALPROTCCTJON AGENCY ' *

REGION •841 Chestnut Bufclng

PMadelpHa. Pennsytvania 19107

Office of Regional CounselB , HowUnd .-'. . • •

March 25, 1993

via r*d*rai ExpressTO: ADDRESSEES ON ATTACHED LIST

Ret Greenwood Chemical Superfund SiteAlbemarle County.' Virginia_____

Dear Sir or Madam: .As you know, in the past the United States

Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") has identified ypu as apotentially responsible party with regard to the GreenwoodChemical Superfund Site ("Greenwood Site") in Newtown, AlbemarleCounty, Virginia. This letter notifies you that the EPA intendsto issue an Explanation of Differences ("ED") in accordance withSection 117(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C.S 9617(c), concerning the previously selected remedial action forOperable Unit One at the Greenwood Chemical Site. EPA hasnotified the public of the availablity of this draft ED forreview, and a copy of it is enclosed. EPA will consider allwritten comments on this draft ED from the general public,including you, that, it receives on or before April 21, 1993.

On April 6, 1993 between 4 and 5 pm I will be availableby teleconference to discuss the ED process and other GreenwoodSite matters*. If you wish to participate, please call 1-202-260-3610 during that time period.

3 L tharles"B.~HowlandAssistant Regional Counsel

CBH:CB

flR000637

Enclosure:

Draft Greenwood EDcc: Pat casano, USDOJ

Dave Rabbino/EPAOEPhilip Rotstein/EPA HWMD

-2-

AR000638

. Muck 24, 1991

Greenwood Chemical Superfund SitePotentially Responsible Parties

• • ' - . ' . . • " • • • ' - ; • . ' ' - • - • - . <Alzo, Incorporated Contact/Counsel:Albert ZofchakPresident6 Gulfstream BoulevardMatawan, New Jersey 07747

Aristech Chemical Corporation Contact/Counsel:Thomas Marshall, Jerome J. PottmeyerChairman of the Board Counsel600 Grant Street . 600 Grant StreetPittsburgh, PA 15230-0250 Pittsburgh, PA 15230-0250i i '

Baxter Scientific Health Care Corporation Contact/Counsel:Doris K. Nagel Marion P. Herrington, Esq.Scientific ProductsDivision Sidley & Austin1430 Waukegan Road One First National PlazaMcGraw Park, Illinios 60085 Chicago, IL 60603

Estate of Robert C. Bennett Contact/Counsel: '•( j902 Addison Road RR James Esgraw, Esq. —'Painted Post, New York 14870

Bidon Corporation Contact/Counsel:CW.BoyerPresident , ,13703 AUiston DriveBaldwin, MD 21013 ' ,.

Borg Warner Corporation Contact/Counsel:S. E. Ball Lee L. Bishop, Esq.Technical Center Robert W. Frantz, Esq.Washington, WV 26181 General Electric Co.

, One Plastics AvenuePittsfield, MA 01201

9R000639

r. March 24, 1093

Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. Contact/Counsei:George W. Aucott , Deanne L. Ayers-HowardPresident Beveridge & Diamond1200 Fircstone Parkway Suite 700Akron, OH 44317 1350, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

Albert Cereghino, Jr. Contact/Counsel:Greenwood Chemical CompanyState Road 690 -Greenwood, Virginia 22943

Chevron Corporation Contact/Counsel:Daniel E. Hemker Daniel E. Vineyard, Esq.575 Market Street 575 Market StreetSan Francisco, CA 94120 San Francisco, CA 94120

E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company Contact/Counsel:Gerald A. HapkaLegal Department1007 Market StreetWilmington, Delaware 19898

1 ' " ' ' • -Experimental Pathology Laboratories, Inc. Contact/Counsel:Cynthia Bono . WiUiam Barton, Jr., Esq.Laboratory Operations Coordinator Barton, Mountain & Tolle2286 Shaw Road Suite 440Sterling, VA 22170 1320 Old Chain Bridge Rd.

P.O. Box 7286McLean,VA 22106-7286

Fisher Scientific Co. Contact/Counsel:William J. Recker Pamela J. Cissik, Esq.President Allied Signal, Inc.711 Forbes Ave. Law DepartmentPittsburgh, PA 15219 P.O. Box 2245R

Morristown, NJ 07960-2245

Greenwood Chemical Company Contact/Counsel:Albert CereghinoP.O. Box 26State Road 690Greenwood, Virginia 22943

' '

flRO.OO'6i»0

. Mwek 14, 1991

GSX Services, Inc. Contact/Counsel:Elizabeth McCormick Barbara J. Hamilton, Esq.3527 Whiskey Bottom Rd. GSX Chemical Services, Inc.Laurel, MD 20810 121 Executive Center Drive

, " . ^ • . . ' . " • Congaree BuildingSuite 100Columbia, SC 29221

Hampford Research, Inc. Contact/Counsel:Leo G. GrondineVice President, OperationsP.O. Box 1073292 Longbrook Ave.Stratford, CT 06497 •

High Point Chemical Company Contact/Counsel:L. Franklin Stevens Susan SawteUe, Esq.243 Woodbine Street Wiley, Rein & FieldingHigh Point, NC 27260 1776 K Street N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20000

Clarence Hustrulid Contact/Counsel:< Susan SawteUe, Esq.

Wiley, Rein & Fielding1776 K Street N.W.Washington, D.C. 20000

. • ' , ' - 'Lonzalnc. Contact/Counsel:Nancy Passow David J. Freeman, Esq.Vice President Holtzmann, Wise 8t ShepardHealth, Safety & Environmental Affairs 745 Fifth Ave.17-17 Route 208 New York, NY 10151FairLawn,NJ 07410

' . ' • - • ' , ' ,Milmaster Onyx Group, Inc. Cotitact/Counsel:T.L. Richardson . Dennis A. Sadlowski, Esq.Lyndal Division Colloids 500 Post Road East1338 Coronet Drive Westport, CT 06680Dalton, GA 30720

Pennsylvania State University Contact/Counsel-Maurine G. Gaver223 Grange Building ^University Park, PA 16802

rt». Much J4. 1993

Pfizer, Inc. . Contact/Counsel:Alan C Zetterburg, Esq j235 E. 42d StreetNew York, NY 10017

R-T. Vanderbilt Contact/Counsel:H.B. Vanderbilt Howard A. NeumanPresident . Satterlee, Stephens, Burke & Burke30 Winfield Street 230 Park Ave. .*"••-•Norwalk, Connecticut 06855 New York, NY 10169-0079

Rambach Corporation Contact/Counsel:Harvey Rambach , ' Gordon N. Utwin, Esq.President Ansell, Zaro, Bennett & Kenney52 Vesey Street 60 Park PlaceNewark, New Jersey 07105 Suite 1705

Newark, NJ 07102

Stackpole Carbon Company Contact/Counsel:Robert Perrot Mary Beth Fall, Esq.President .' Jones, Day, Revis & PogueHighway 15 One Mellon Bank Center460 West 31st FloorFarmville,VA 23901 500 Grant Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

U. S. Naval Facilities* Engineering Contact/Counsel: • •.Command John S. Wittman, Esq.DavidDaly Code 09CCommander U. S. Naval Facilities EngineeringCode 1822 CommandNorfolk, VA 23511-6287 Norfolk, VA 23511-6287

Union Carbide Corporation Contact/Counsel:Robert Kennedy Roger Florio, Esq.President \ Environmental Counsel39 Old Ridgebeny Road Corporate Law DepartmentDanbury,CT 06*817 39 Old Ridgebury Road _

Danbury, CT 06817

University of Maryland Contact/Counsel:President William Howard, Esq.University of Maryland - College Park Assistant Attorney GeneralCollege Park, Maryland 20742 Office of die Attorney General

200 Saint Paul PlaceBaltimore, MD 21202-2019

' '

flR0006U2

PROPOSED EXPLANATION 07 SIQNIflCAOT DIFFERENCESGREENWOOD CHEMICAL SITSALBEMARL3 COUHTT, VIRGINIA

•( 'INTRODUCTION ;

Tha Greenwood Chemical Sita ("Site") is located in tha communityof Nawtown in Albemarle County Virginia. Greenwood ChemicalCompany ("Greenwood") formerly operated a small-volume chemicalmanufacturing facility at the Site* The 0.3. EnvironmentalProtection Agency ("SPA") is currently conducting a RemedialDesign for the Site under the authority of the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, asamended ("CERCIA"), 42 U.3.C. S 9801 s£ sag., commonly referredto as "Superfund." This Remedial Design is being conducted withthe support of the Virginia Department of Waste Management.

, Tha Explanation of Significant Differences addresses EPA's .identification of additional soils at the site that requirecleanup and clarifies certain aspects of the selected remedy.

" • ' ' ' • ' • ' , , . 'ORIGINAL SELECTED REMEDY FOR 00-1 AND SUBSEQUENT SITS ACTIVITIES

EPA has organized its cleanup activities at the Site into severalOperable Units; The Operable Unit at issue here is Operable Uniton* ("OU-l"), for which EPA issued a Record of Decision ("ROD")dated December 23, 1939. The OU-1 ROD addressed the surface \ )conditions and contamination at the Site requiring remedial ^action. The Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Reports("RI/FS") found that the Site contained contaminated soils andcontainers of chemicals which may present an imminent andsubstantial andangerment to public health, welfare, or theenvironment. To address these hazards of concern, tha remedyselected in tha OU-1 ROD contained tha following majorcomponents:

* Excavation of soil whose contaminant concentrations exceedrisk-based cleanup levels (Sea Attachment 1); volumaestimated at 4,500 cubic yards; actual amount to badetermined during excavation; .

» Implementation of stormwater runoff controls duringexcavation, as specified under National Pollutant DischargeElimination System Permit Application Regulations for StormWater Discharges (40 CFR Part 122.26);

e Staging,, sampling, and analysis of excavated soil;-"

e Transportation of contaminated soil which does not meat thaRCRA Land Disposal Restrictions ("LDRs") treatment levels,40 CFR S 263, to an off-site, high, temperature, thermal •treatment facility (incinerator) permitted under tha *

flR0006l»3

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended,("RCRA"), 42 U.S.C. $S 6901 fit seer.

• Incineration of such contaminated soil, stabilization of ash(if necessary) and disposal of ash in a RCRA Subtitle Clandfill;

* Disposal of excavated soil which meets the RCRA LDRsdirectly in a RCRA Subtitle C landfill;

• Backfilling of excavated areas with clean fill;• Removal and disposal of chemicals formerly located in cn-

site buildings;

• Covering of backfilled areas with tepsoil followed byrevegetation.

The Final Remedial Investigation Report (Rl), dated August, 1990,found that additional contaminated soils not addressed in the OU-1 ROD are located beneath the former Process Buildings A, B, andC and within certain other areas of the Site. The contaminantlevels in these additional soils exceed the risk-based cleanuplevels and pose an unacceptable risk to human health and theenvironment* To further define the nature and extent ofcontamination associated with these additional soils, EPAdetermined that Process Buildings A, B, and C needed to bedismantled and removed from the site during the preparation ofthe Remedial Design ("RD") for OU-1 to permit access to theunderlying contaminated soils.

EPA issued an Explanation of Significant Differences ("BSD") forOU-l dated July 17, 1991, which described the dismantling of theprocess buildings. The 1991 ESD's major activities included:• Removal of all manually separable materials contained in

tanks within the buildings prior to dismantling of the'buildings; off-site treatment and disposal of materials at afacility permitted under RCRA; <

* Evaluation.of building components for possible recycling,salvaging or disposal in a RCRA Subtitle D (non hazardouswaste)- landfill; decontamination of any materials consideredappropriate for such handling on-site, in accordance withRCRA (40 CFR Part 265, Subpart G and Subpart J) and theVirginia Hazardous Waste Management Regulations ("VHWMR")(Section 9.9) prior to recycling, salvaging or disposal in aRCRA Subtitle D landfill;

• Removal of manually separable contaminated materialsadhering to other building components and treatment and/or

-2-

disposal as required under RCRA (40 CFR Part 268) and VHWMR(Section 9.9);

• Removal pf asbestos containing materials from thebuildings and disposal in an off-site landfill in accordancewith Part VIII of the Virginia Solid Waste ManagementRegulations ("VSWMR11) and 40 CFR $ 61.156 (National EmissionStandard for Asbestos, Cross-reference to other asbestpsregulations); . , , '' ' •

• Disposal of all contaminated building components (or thosefor which decontamination is not possible) in a RCRAsubtitle c landfill; disposal of all non-hazardous ordecontaminated building components in a RCRA Subtitle Dlandfill. • ; ; :

SUMMARY OF SAMPLE RESULTS FROM THE DISMANTLING OFr THE PROCESSBUILDINGS

The analyses of soil samples taken from the location of formerProcess Buildings A, B and C pursuant to the July 17, 1991 ESDhas enabled EPA to confirm and further refine Final RI dataindicating that soils underlying and adjacent to the processbuildings contain the same groups of chemical constituents(volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, andinorganic compounds) above risk-based clean-up levels as thoseaddressed in the OU-l ROD* EPA has used the results of itssampling to estimate the quantity and location of soils exceedingthese cleanup levels* within and adjacent to the area of thedismantled process buildings.DESCRIPTION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES

Based on. sampling results in the Final RI and from the ongoingRD, EPA has determined that the remedy for OU-l will addressadditional contaminated soil in the areas described below. Thelocations of these areas of additional contamination are shown onAttachment 2. ;•- . . '. . ( , - , . ; • .

• An area contiguous to Backfill North, extending to andbeneath former Process Building A;

• An area including the locations of former Process Buildings3 and C and the former lagoon "Backfill Northeast*associated with these buildings;

• The former Drum Disposal Area, the Waste Dump Area^ theNortheast Drum, Area and if subsequent sampling revealscontaminant concentrations above risk-based levels, theNorthern Warehouse Area. .'

The size of the area of contaminated soil which EPA willremediate will increase from the 1*5 acres estimated in the OU-1ROD to approximately 7 acres because of EPA's identification ofadditional contaminated soil* The quantity of soil to beexcavated as part of the remedial action is presently estimatedat 11,000 cubic yards. EPA has reviewed the remedialalternatives evaluated at the time of ROD issuance and determinedthat the selected remedy remains the most appropriate alternativeeven with the increased quantity of soil to be addressed*In this ESD, EPA is also noting several other changes orclarifications it Is making to the remedy originally set forth inthe OU-1 ROD, including the following:• The OU-1 ROP states that "screened (sampled and analyzed)

soils shall then be transported to an off-site thermaloxidation/disposal facility.* As a point of clarification,EPA notes that final disposition of such soils will beaccomplished in accordance with VHWHR regulatoryrequirements. ' ' ' _ . ' '

• The OU-1 ROD states that the selected remedy is expected toremove all soil contaminated above levels of concern fromthe areas identified. EPA has determined that in certain ,areas, soil contaminated above the risk-based cleanup levelsextends below the depth at which excavation is costeffective. Therefore, other remedial alternatives must beconsidered. EPA will establish a separate operable unit toaddress the deeper contaminated soils, below excavationdepths specified in the remedial design, which requireremediation but which will not be addressed by the OU-1remedy. Additionally, this new operable unit will addresscertain arsenic contaminated coils that were initiallywithin the scope of the OU-1 ROD. EPA has now determinedthat these soils do not pose an unacceptable risk throughthe groundwater pathway, but only through direct contactand, therefore, will be addressed in a subsequent ROD.

• The OU-1 ROD stated that the contaminated soils associatedwith Lagoons,!, 2, 3, and Backfill North were believed tohave received RCRA F002 and F005 hazardous wastes and thatRCRA Clean Closure requirements would be met for these areas(40 CFR SS 264.228). EPA has now determined, based on itssubsequent sampling activities, that Lagoons 2 and 3, and

.. soils beneath former Process Buildings B and C were the onlysoils which received RCRA F002 and F005 hazardous waste. Asnoted above, EPA has determined that certain of the. Site'ssoils that exceed risk-based cleanup levels, including thoseassociated with Lagoons 2 and 3, and Process Buildings B andC, are below the depth at which excavation is costeffective. Such soils will be addressed under the separate(deep soils) operable unit, at which time EPA will determine

• • ' ' .: • •' -' •"' ..... -4--

AR0006U6

which particular RCRA closure,requirements will be mat (40CFR SS 264.220 - 264.230).

EPA has developed new risk-based soil cleanup levels .protective of groundwater based on fate and transportmodeling that use more site-specific information and a,revised model (See Attachment 3). A discussion of thederivation of these cleanup levels is contained in the twovolume report entitled "Final Fate & Transport Modeling ForDetermination of Soil Cleanup Goals Protective ofGroundwater" dated Februaryr 1993* A copy of this report isavailable in the administrative record file for the Site.The estimated cost of the selected remedy is likely tochange from the original estimate of S3.7 million containedin the OU-1 ROD. EPA currently estimates the cost of theOU-l remedy to be approximately $25 million. • This estimate•represents EPA's most conservative cost estimate and assumesthat all Site soils will require incineration prior to off-site disposal, in order to comply with the current RCRA LDRs(40 CFR Part 268). The actual cost of implementing the OU-1ROD may be less if the RCRA LDRs effective at the time ofdisposal reduce the actual percentage of soils that willrequire incineration or other treatment prior to disposal ina Subtitle C landfill.The OU-1 ROD stated that, because of the similarity ofcertain,excavated Site soils (those contaminated with \.jnaphthalene, naphthalene derivatives, -and numerous othersemi-volatile organic compounds) to RCRA-listed wastes KOOl.and K037 (40 CFR 5 261.32), EPA intended to apply thetreatment standard (i.e., incineration) for RCRA KOOl andK037 waste streams to these soils. EPA has.now determined,in accordance with the RCRA contained-ln interpretiverule,1 that these soils shall be subject to thermaltreatment (incineration) prior to.land disposal only ifcontaminant concentrations exceed the new risk-based clean-up levels (See above). .The OU-l ROD states that the RCRA wastepile regulations (40CFR S 264.250*259) would be followed during the RemedialAction.. EPA has now determined that these regulations are •.not applicable and thus need not be, followed because theexcavated soil piles will remain entirely within the Area ofContamination (AOC) prior to off-site disposal. However/

1 Sea/"Implementing the Land Disposal Restrictions; Question andAnswer Document" (Sept. 1, 19891» Chemical Waste Management. Tne. y. gp&. 369F.2d 1S26 (D.C. Clr. 1939)1 Advanced Notice of Public RulemaJcing for LandDisposal Restrictions for Newly Listed Wastes and Contaminated Debris (SS red,Reg. 244SS, May 31, 1991). . ;

. ' '- . ' •• • . '; -5- . . ' . .-• ' - ..-' ' . • -

flR0006U7

<H>r

these regulations will be followed to the extent relevantand appropriate to prevent the uncontrolled release ofcontaminated soil through the action of wind and/or waterduring^remedial activities. RCRAlwastepile regulationsdeemed relevant and appropriate include, for example, 40 CFR$ 264.254 and VHWMRPart X, S lO.ll(E) which concernsmonitoring and inspection, and 40 CFR S 264.251(f) and VHWMRPart X, S 10.1l(A)(3)(c), which addresses proper managementto control wind dispersal of particulate matter*

SUMMARY OF RISKS • •i . • . ' . - • 'Additional soils to be addressed by the OU-1 remedy arecontributing to the previously identified unacceptable risks inthe OU-i ROD posed by (1) ingestion of contaminated groundwaterassociated with contaminated soil and (2) incidental ingestionof, and direct contact with, contaminated soil.

STATUTORY DETERMINATION REGARDING THE NECESSITY OF A CERCLA $ 121FIVE-YEAR REVIEW FOR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES REMAINING AT THE SITE

Since some hazardous substances will likely remain on-site aftercompletion of the OU-1 remedial action, a CERCLA 12t(c)., 42U.S.C. S 9621{c), five-year review will be required.SUPPORT AGENCY REVIEW

/ •The Commonwealth of Virginia has reviewed the change in scope ofthe remedy selected for OU-1 as described above, and concurs withthis ESD.AFFIRMATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATION

The EPA and Virginia Department of waste Management believe thatthe remedy selected for OU-1, including the changes documented inthis ESD, remains protective of human health and the environment,complies with Federal and Commonwealth requirements that areapplicable or relevant and appropriate to this remedial action,.and is cost effective. In addition, the revised remedy utilizespermanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to themaximum extent practicable for this Site.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES

. • •.• i ' ' 'The proposed ESD was released for public comment as part of theAdministrative Record file on March 23, 1993. The Proposed ESDand other related documents are available to the public in boththe Administrative Record file located in the EPA Region Ill'sDocket Room in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (available for reviewfrom 9 AM to 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday), and at the CrozetLibrary in Crozet, Virginia (available for review from 9 AM to 5PM, Monday through Saturday). The notice of availability of

, ' -6-

AROOQ6<48

these documents was published in The Charlottesvilla Daily'rogress on March 23, 1993 and The Charlottesville Observer onMarch 25, 1993 and is also part of the Administrative Record filefor the Site. SPA encourages the public to review and comment onthe proposed ESD and supporting documents in the AdministrativeRecord. All comments should be submitted.to EPA within thirty(30) days from the notice of availability date. EPA'a responseto the comments received during the comment period will beincluded in the Responsiveness Summary, which will be part of thefinal ESD.

All comments on this ESD should be directed toiPhilip RotsteinRemedial Project Manager (3HW41)U.S. Environmental Protection Agency341 Chestnut BuildingPhiladelphia, PA 19107 •

-7-

flR0006l*9

ATTACHMENT I

TARGET CONCENTRATIONS FOR CHEMICALS IK SOILTHE CROUNOWATER INGESTION PATHWAY AT THE

CHWZCAL

. . . . • ' , .M«t&yl«M cUlorid* O.I K««lt&*b«s«d

Ux 10^ rttJc)S«ai-vcl4til« TZCs SIO M««d en thrtshold

. texieit/Total PAH SOOO Bu«d on threshold(n*phthal«n«) toxieityT«trachloro«thtn« 0.07 WQCTrichlorotthtM 0.13 NCZ»voUtil« TXC« 1.0 8M«4 on thrMhold

j. toxicity.

HCt • maxiraii eont«ainant liait <WQC • vatar quality eriUria(A • CPA R«alch AdTliory. Of fie* of Orlaklac V«ur, 1987

BR000650

sxfuuot

• HRL9XV9e nntonwo omca• MOTS Muuuoas*F StOfJUV SODS

sJ.ft OIQII nm& O<OM nrnxm AU& *N OftOM UNDtZM AJtftft #v NOftsxuai wuusocm0 AftAMOOMIO STXtJCTOMa _ __• «_«. r I amxwooa cxtwcu tmr «"•**• -I AUtHAHtft COWTT, VA9 WXfACt OftOM »•« •—ft Wilt OtTCXS HOftZSUUX OftOM AJUU

00-1 CZCAVAXZON AMA»

srri LAYOUT

flRUUUbbl

INSERT

SR000652

: ATTACHMENT 3

SOIL CLEANUP LEVELS TOR CONTAMINANTS ATGREENWOOD CHEMICAL SUPERPUND SZT8

SODRCfl AREA ACTION LIMITS ,- DRUM DISPOSALACTION LIMITS (DIRECT CONTACT) ACTION LIMITS(GROUNDWATER . (GROUNDWATERPROTECTION) PROTECTION)

CLEANUP LEVELS ' .

Volatila Organic3____mg/kg___mg/kg_____mg/kgBanzena 0.225 59 0.0224Chlorobenzena 7,703.7 1600 , -——Kathyleno Chlorida 2,665.1 230 >10.33Tatrachlorathylena -—— 33 0.2364 „Trichloroathylani 0.100 150 0.0974Toluena 40,917.6 16,000 >101*4Ethylbenzena --..- 7,300Xylana ——•- 160,000 ——•l,2-Dichlorathan« 0.124 19 —— \~Acatona 1,462.1 7,300 ——Tatrahydrofuran 97,269 160 •••'/Chloroform 0.219 230 0.3262Semi-Volatila Organlca ,Semi-Volatila TICa 600 ' 680 158.6/Total-PAHs —— —.-» ,4-Chloranalina 563.7 310 '' ——-Bls(2-ethylhexyl) —— 120 ——phthlata '2,4,6 Trichiofophenol ——-- 150Dl-N-butylphthalat» —— 7,800 _ ——rKaphthalena — —: 3,100 -——InorganicsArsenic —— 25(abova 5 feat) .Arsenic ' "•-.'. . - —— • ——; ' , . .——» , • ((balow 5 feat) \Cyanida ' .--—' 1,600 ——

flR000653