SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE A - Z

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 18•REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION Ib. RESTRICTIVE MARKINGSi • ~UNCLASSIFIED ,

.SECRITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF REPORTUnlimited Distribution Approved for

2b. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWVNGRADING SCHEDULE Public Release

4. PEIORMINf OPGANIZAJION O MER(S) S. MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER($)

No. 43-21-1229-87 SAPEO-CDE-IS-87004

g.AMOF PERFO,'ING ORGANi A[ION 6b. OFFICE sYMBoL 7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATIONu.b.Army =nvironmena (If appicab:.) U.S. Army Office of the Program ExecutiviHygiene Agency HSHB-NE-AA Officer - Program Manager for Chemical D4

6c. AUDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 7b. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZiP Code)U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency Ofc of the Program Executive Officer -

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5422 Program Manager for Chemical DemilitarizvAberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401

ga. NAME OF FUNDING•"SFONSORING 8b. OFFICE SYMBOL 9. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBERORGANIZATION (If applicable)Ofc of PEO-PM Chem Demil AMCPEC-CDE

Ic. ADDRESS (City State, and ZIPCo0e) 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERSOfc of the Program Executive Officer-Prograu PROGRAM PROJECT TASK ,WORK UNITManager for Chemical Demilitarization ELEMENT NO. NO. NO. ACCESSION

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401

11. TITLE (Include Security Clasfication) .

Evaluation of Multiple Incinerator Air Quality mtiacts

12. PERSONAL AUTHOR(S) ,. _

TYPE OF REPORT 13b. TIMV COVT8D -' 14. DATE OF REPORT (Year, Month, Coy) IS. PAGE COUNT\. Finl FROM ovuu TO":ay 87 May 1987 12

16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION /

17. COSATI CODES 118sI BJECT TERMS (Conftnue on reverse if .meceary and identify by block number)

ELD GROUP SUB-GROUP eToxic Air Pollutants, Mustard, Blister Agent, Chemical

~ I I Agent, Chemical Agent Incineration. ~19. ABYRACT (Continue on reverse if necenary and identify by block number)

The purpose of this study was to examine the long-term additive ambient impact of certa

toxic air pollutants that will potentially be emitted from the Chemical Agent Incinerat(AI) prorosed for the Edgewood Area (EA) of Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), Maryland and

from three additional planned or existing incinerators also located on the EA. This in

was determined in consideration of the existance and operation of three additional planor existing incinerators also located on EA. Based on air dispersion modeling ccnduActe

as part of an original analysis, emissions of chlorinated organics from the U.S. Army

Medical ReSearch Institute for Chemical Defense Pathological Waste Incinerator and the

Chemical Research, Development and Engineering C'+ntar Decontamination/DetoxificationIncinerator were found to have little or no ambient air quality impact, relative to the

Municipal Waste Incinerator (MWI), for downwind distances as great as the distance to tnearest boundary of the F.A. Consequently, for this evajuation, only the MWI is considfto emit chlorinated oroanics. ._-__. _ .> . {. -Sep re,,erse side for continuation. , - ........

20. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT 121. ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION%,,R NCLASSIFIEDIUNLIMITED E SAMS AS RPT. 0 -TIC USFRS UNCLASSIFIED

, NAME OF RESPONSI3LE INDIVIDUAL Ub. TELEPHONE (Include Area Coe) 22€'OFFICE SYMBOL

AALLAN~ MCKINNEY (301) 671-2451.2 AMCPEO-CD"DD Form 1473. JUN 86 Prevous ecittlor are obsolete. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

.. ... ../

4�;

., �

�

�4,

* .4 !�.� � A �99+&.

h

'9, �

( " � ' �z�'%- �7'x: 9'

"7 � �494�;t,

9, A9,

'�

9,;'' 49,

9, � �\9,.'

A;4

�9

'4

�' . 9,,

- 'A

''WI-,

'

19. ABSTRACT Continuation:

Synergistic effects, due to the overlapping of air emissions plumes, werenot considered because the composition of the effluent could not be defined insufficient detail for this analysis and because synergisLis between toxic substanceare not well understood or quantifiable. Furthermore, the effluent plumes arerarely expected to overlap. Consequently, only the additive effects of chronicexposure to ambient concentrations of the selected pollutants were examined inth5s study.

'4-'Accesion Fr• • ~NTIS CRA&M

P4 DTIC TAB 0

8 4-4 U-annot iced 00u tf• ~ , ... .... .......... .

t y

0

4J

A-i Av'1Ib;;ity CtudesS- • ( Ava~i a,.d I jr

".H

J,~

UNITED STATES ARMYw ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE

AGENCYIRS ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MD 21010-5422

AIR POLLUTION CONSULTATIONNO. 43-21-1229-87A ~ ~ EVALUATION OF fliLT1PLE INCINERATuR AiR QUALITY IMPACTS

EDGEWOOD AREAABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND

MAY 1987

ref to Ma fo Chic n SDemi ta ti 1 a TN: CP C E, be e

DESTRUCTION NOTICE - Dentroy by any method that will preventdisclosure of contents or recoretruction of the document.

aW

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYU. &. ARMY KNViRONMENTAL HYGIENE AGENCY

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND. MARYLAND 210104422

19 JUN 1987HSHB- ME-AAMEMORANDUM FOR: Commiander, U.S. Army Materiel Commnand, ATTN: AMCSG, 5001Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333-0001

* ~SUBJECT: Air Pollu~tion Consultation No. 43-21-1229-P7, Evaluation of MultipleIncinerator Air Quality Impacts, Edgewood Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground,Maryland, May 1987

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The purpose of this report was to examine the long-term additive impact ofcertain toxic air pollutants that have the potential to be emitted from thechemical agent incinerator proposed for the Edgewocd Area of Aberdeen ProvingGround, Maryland and from three additional Incinerators either existing orunder construction on the Edgewood Area.

2. There are no recommnendations at this time.

- FOR THE COMMANDER:

Endl KARL J. DAUBELColonel, MS

'~ Director, Environmental Quality

CF:HQDA(DAEN-ZCF-U/DAEN-ZCE) (w/enc!)HQDA(DASG-PSP) (wa/endl)Cdr, TECOM, ATTN: AMSTE-FE-M (w/encl)Cdr, MEDDAC, Ft Meade, ATTN: PVNTMED Svc (w/encl)Cdr, WRAMC, ATISN: PVNTMED Svc (2 cy) (w/encl)Prog Mgr, Chem Demil, ATTN: AMCPM (w/encl)Cdr, USAEHA Fld Spt Actv, Ft Meade (w/encl)Cdr, USAMRICD (w/ericl)Cdr, CRDEC (w/encl)

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYU. S. APMY ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE AGENCY

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND 21010"A22

£TTgIllm1I•O

HSH1B-ME-AA

AIR POLLUTION CONSULTATION NO. 43-21-1229-87EVALUATION OF MULTIPLE INCINERATOR AIR QUALITY IMPACTS

EDGEWOOD AREAABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND

MAY 1987

1. AUTHORITY. Initial End, HQ AMC, AMCSG, 23 May 1967, to letter, ProgramManager for Chemical Munitions (Demilitarization and Binary) (Provisional), AMCPM20 May 1987, subjcct: Request for Reevaluation of Multiple-Incinerator StackEffects at APG, Based Upon Additional Data.

2. PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was t3 examine the long-term additiveimpact of certain toxic air pollutants that have the potential to be emittedfrom.the chemical agent incinerator (AI) proposed for the Edgewood Area (EA)of Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), Maryland and from three additional plannedor existing incinerators also located on the EA.

3. BACKGROUND.

a. The ambient impacts of multiple incinerators operating on the EA werefirst examined by USA Environmental Hygiene Agency (USAEHA) in December 1986(Appendix A, reference 3). A reevaluation was requested because revised

Semissions information for %he Al has become available since the originalevaluation was performled.

b. The originfl evaluation examined the impacts of emissions from threeincinerators in addition to the Al, the Harford County Municipal Waste Incinerator(14WI) (currently under construction), the USA Medical Research Institute forChemical Defense (USAMRICD) pathological waste incinerator (PWI), and the USAChemical Research, Development, and Engineering Center (USACRDEC) decontamination/detoxification (DECON/DETOX) incinerator. The location of these incineratorsare shown on the following Figure. The evaluation emphasized the impacts of certa.toxic air pollutants commonly present in waste incinerator emissions for whichambient stancards do not generally exist. These pollutants were defined to bea group of chlorinated organic compounds consisting of dioxins, furans, poly-chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chlorobenzents, and chlorophenols. In addition,mustard (HO) emissions from the AI were considered.

c. The revised source emissions information consisted of new emission ratesfor HD and additional data on the products of incomplete HD combustion.

(1) For the original evaluation, Al emission rates for HD were takenfrom Appendix A, reference 9. The revised HO emission rates that were providedin the authority letter reflect revised hours of incinerator operation and changesin the building ventilation rate.

a

\- R %~'~ '% 'w ~ ' ~iA~'~e'~/' PQ~ ~ ~ -. p \

Ai, Pollution Consultation~ No. 43-21-1229-87. May 87

"-o ill j~to Fur 1c 3.I *.1 24 , / cSER OIR Wa~rlce' '.i

Abingdo ~.er Pryma

7 r

I. - -'

ce ve no ICt AS 7 -nor. /A

Frriendshi~C to.ma$ AC .. cEsatsA .- 1 , Ptrma/Ab do.4r% hu-rer Pt -,P

f~ fe uhC 5

Mao 'lanb P. beyP/0TPR VING L3 firs~ CA 9

qIvy' I- V o

Nir Pellution Consultation No. 43-21-1229-87, May 87

(2) Due to a lack of available data, the oriaioial evaluation conserva-tively assumed that chlorinated organics would be formed during HD incinerationand would be emitted from the stack at a rate of one perrent of the emissionrata given for nonmethane hydrocarbons (Appendix A, reference 9). The incin-erator designer has recently completed an analysis which indicates that,for HD incineration at design operating conditions, negligible amounts ofchlorinated organics are formed as products of incomplete combustion. Thisinformation was provided informally by the Office of the Program Manager forChemical Munitions.

d. Based on air dispersion modeling conducted as part of the original analysis,emissions of chlorinated organics from the PWI and the DECON/DETOX viere foundto have little r.r no ambient air quality impact, relative to the MWI, fordownwind distances as great as the distance to the nearest boundary of the EA.Consequently, for this evaluation, only the MWI is considered to emit chlorinatedorganics.

e. A preliminary evaluation was conducted in which the frequency of occurrenceof simultaneously overlapping plumes from the MWI and the AI was examined (AppendixA, reference 4). Significant plume overlap was estimated to occur 5 percent ofthe time or less, depending on the extent of plume overlap. in addition, localwinds were believed to be sufficiently var 4able in direction that any overlap wouldpersist no more than a few hours. Furthermore, dispersion modeling conducted

Sfor the original evaluation showed that areas having the greatest long-term ambientimpact of emissions from the two facilities did not overlap.

f. Synergistic effects, due to overlapp;ng plumes, were not considered becausethe composition of the effluent cmuld not be defined in sufficient detail for suchan analysis and because synergisms between toxic substances are not well understoodor quantifiable. Furthermore, the effluent plumes are rarely expected to overlap.Consequently, only the additive effects of chronic exposure to ambient concen-trations of the selected pollutants were expmined in this study.

4. DISCUSSION OF METHODOLOGY.

a. Ambient Concentrations of HD. Dispersion modeling was used to calculatetheoretical estimates of annual average ambient ground level concentrations of HO.

(1) The Industrial Source Complex (ISC) dispersion model was selectedas appropriate for this application (Appendix A, reference 5). The U.S.Environmental Protection Aaency (EPA) lists this model as a refined model pre-ferred for regulatory applications (Appendix A, r3ference 6). The short-termversion of tAe model (!SCST) was used. This version calculates concentrationssequentially usinm hourly meteorological data. The hourly concentrations arethen averaged over the annual period. The modeling was conducted assuming thatthe surrounding terrain was flat ard that local land use could be classified asrural. Effluent plume rise was calculated as a function of downwind distanceusing the generalized Briggs plume rise equations.

3

/£

Air Pollution Consultation No. 43-21-1229-87, May 87

(2) For the original analysis, arabient concentrations were calculatedat locations defined by a rectangular grid array. Based on the results of thismodeling, eight receptors were selected as representative of the locations ofthe most significant offpost impacts from the incinerators of interest. Thelocation of these receptors are shown in the Figure. Receptors 2 3nd 7 are theapproximate locations of the maximum offpost impact from the MWI and the AI,respectively. The other six receptors are considered to be indicative of impactsto surrounding higher density population areas (e.g., Edgewood and Joppatowne).

(3) Source information used in modeling Al HD emissions are given inTable 1 (from the authority letter and Appendix A, refereace 9). The HD feedwas assumed to contain no contaminants. For modeling, continuous incineratoroperation was assumed. The authority letter provided an emission rate from theliquid incinerator/metal parts furnace stack of 0.00020 gm/sec for an operatingtime of 2000 hours per year. Total annual emissions based on these data wereused to determine an emission rate for the continuous operation (8760 hours peryear) assumption. The ventilation system is expected to run continuously.

TABLE 1. EMISSIONS INFORMATION USED TO MODEL MUSTARD FROM THE AI

Emission Stack Stack GasRate Characteristics Characteristics

Source (qm/sec) Height(m) Dia(m) Vel (m/sec) Temp (KL

Liquid iric/ 0.00005* 38 0.7 17 352Metal PartsFurnace

Demil Bldg 0.30057 38 1.4 7 300Ventilation

*Adjusted for continuous cperitlon based on total annual emissions

(4) Hourly surface meteorological data used for the modeling were fromPhillips Army Airfield, located dt the Aberdeen Area of APG, for the period1 January through 31 December 1955. Concurrent twice daily mixing height datawere for Spring Hill, Maryland. Surface data suitable for dispersion modelingwere not available for Aberdeen afte. 1957. However, meteorological data fromthis period are believed to be representative of the current dispersion climatologyof the Aberde2n Area. An annual wind rose showing the frequency of occurrence ofhours of selected wind speed and wind direction classes is shown in Appendix B.The 1955 data set was selected as reasonably representative of the '-.cal dispersionclimatology based on a qualitative comparison of annual wind roses .r each ofthe years 1953-1956 with a wind rose for the period 1947-1956.

4

Air Pollution Consultation No. 43-21-1229-87, May 87

b. Ambient Concentrations of Chlorinated Organics. Model estimated dnnualaverage ambient concentrations of chlorinated organics due to emissions fromthe MWI were taken from the original analysis. These concentrations were calcu-lated using a methodology identical to that described in paragraph 5a(1), above.Meteorological data from APG for 1955 were also used. Emission rates for chlor-inated organics were determined from the results of a study of a similar typeincinerator (Appendix A, reference 8). source information used in the modelingis given in Table 2. The emission rate is based on continuous operation at themaximum design feed rate (310 tons per day).

TABLE 2. EMISSIONS INFORMATION USED TO MODEL CHLORINATED ORGANICS FROM THE MWI

Emission Physical Stack Stack GasRate Characteristics Characteristics

(qm/sec) Height~m) Diameter(m) Velocity(m/sec) Temp(K)

0.0011 18 1.4 20 472

c. Risk Calculations.

(1) The carcinogenicity of a substance may be indicated by in vitro tests,more strongly suggested by animal studies, or further documented by human epidemio-logical evidence. For some carcinogens, models have been developed that allowcalculation of carcinogenic potency factors. Such factors allow quantitation ofcarcinogenic risk. Assuming low-dose linearity, the risk of cancer associatedwith a given pollutant concentration is estimated using the relationship:

Risk - Q* x D

where Risk is the additional lifetime risk of developing cancer based on a lifetimeof constant exposure to a substance with a carcinogenic potency factor Q* at aparticular dose, D (Appendix A, reference 7). The term Q* is expressed in milli-gram per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day)-i and D is in (mg/kg/d3y). Risk estimatesare determined assuming a 70-year lifetime for a 70 kg individual with a 20 cubicmeter per day inhalation rate. •Ithough no standard fcr an acceptable llfetim2cancer risk exists, risks of 1 0og are considered adcquately protective by the EPA(Appendix A, reference 10).

(2) For this analysis, the additive carcinogenic effects associated withexposure to all of the chlorinated organics that are emitted from the MWI wereassumed to be equivalent to that of PCBs. The human carcinogenic potential ofPCEs is not krnown, particularly foi the inhalation route of exposure. A Q* valuedeveloped from ingestion studies using laboratory animals was used to calculatethe risk estimates. This Q* vAlte is 4.34 (mg/kg/day)-1 (Appendix A, reference 7).

5

I Tm

Air Pollution Consultation No. 43-21-1229-87, May 87

Not all of the chlorinated organic emissions are considered carcinogenic and thosethat are considered carcinoqenic have a wide range of potencies. For example, aform of dioxin, 2,3,7,8 teWrachlorndiphenyl dioxin (TCDD), is known to be consid-erably more toxic tc some animals than PCBs. However, emissions of 2,3,7,8 TCDDwill com~prise a minute portion of the total emission of chlorinated organics. No

formal Q* has been developed for HD by EPA or any other regulatory agency.

5. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION.

a. Ambient Polluta-,t Concent'-aticns.

(1) Model estimated annual average ground leve' concentrations of HDat the receptor locations are given in Table 3. No depletion ot th3 HD throughatmospheric chemistry processes was assumed to occur. Emission rates given inTable 1 are based on an in-stack concentration standard of 0.03 milligram (mg)/m3 . Actual stack concentrations likely will be much lower. Consequently, themodeled concentrations given in Table 3 are believed to be conservative (over-estimated). As indicated in the authority letter, the means for a lower minimumdetection sensitivity for in-stack monitors is being investigated. If bettersensitivities are achieved, a stack standard as low as 0.003 mg/m 3 may be estab-lished. For- such a standard, ambient HD concentrations shown in Table 3 would beless by a factor of ten.

TABLE 3. ESTIM-ATED ANNUAL CONCENTRATIONS OF HD AT SELECTED RECEPTOR SITES

ConcentrationReceptor (Nanograms/m 3 )

1 0.0132 0.0213 0.0234 0.0265 0.0336 0.0187 0.0378 0.0Z6

(2) Model estimated annual average ground level concentrations of chlori-nated organics at the eight receptor locations are given in Table 4. As summarizedpreviously, the MWI was assumed to be the only emitter of chlorinated organics.Since the MWI likely will not operate continuously at full capacity, these concen-trations should be considered co;,servatlve.

6

12=

Air Pollution Ccnýjltatioai No. 43-21-1229-87, May 87

TABLE 4. ESTIM•,..•, -._,JAL AVERAG•E GROUND LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS OF CHLORINATEDORGANICS AT SELECTED RECEPTOR LOCATIONS

ConcentrationReceptor (Nanograms/m

3 )

1 0.1002 0.328*3 0.1494 0.1025 0.0576 0.0447 0.0248 0.026

* Approximate location of maximum Impact

b. Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks.

(1) Estimated excess cancer risk due to liletime exposure to modeled con-centrations of chlorinated organics emitted from the F•WI were calculated for eachreceptor. These estimated risks are listed in Table 5. Because of the conservativeassumptions used in the modeling (e.g., continuous operation), these risks arebelieved to be overestimates of actual risks.

TABLE 5. ESTIMATED EXCESS LIFETIME CANCER RISKS DUE TO EXPOSURE TO MODELEDCONCENTRATIONS OF CHLORINATED ORGANICS

Receptor RIsk

1 1 x 10-7

2 4 x 10-7

3 lx 10-74 2 x 10"75 7 x 10-86 5 X 10-8

7 3 x 1O"88 3 x 10-8

7

Air Pollution Consultation No. 43-21-1229-87, May 87

(2) Because no formal carcinogenic potency factor has been developedfor HD, quantitative cancer risks could not be calculated. However, based onthe best available scientific data, the estimated ambient levels of exposure toHD given in Table 3 are believed to pose negligible excess lifetime cancer risk.

6. SUWMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.

a. The results of dispersion modeling indicate that offpost areas receivingthe greatest long-term impact of emissions from the AI and the MWI, respectivelydo not overlap. This result is consistent with the conclusions of a preliminaryanalysis regarding simultaneous plume overlap.

b. For emissions of chlorinated organic compounds from the MWI, conservativeestimated excess Hetime cancer risks at eight locations outside gf the EA bouncrange from 4 x 10-7 to 3 x 10-8. For comparison, risks of I x 10" are considereto be appropriately protective by EPA and most individuals.

c. Lifetime exposure to model estimated ambient levels of HD are believed tobe sufficiently low to pose negligible lifetime cancer risks with respect torisks considered adequately protective. In addition, the Al is expected to opera2 years rather than a 70 year lifetime.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS. There are no recommendations at this time.

-/ -, / 9

CAARLES, H. HUNTERMeteorologistAir Pollution Engineering Division

;/7MAJ, MCOccupational Medicine OfficerOccupational and Environmrental Medicine

Divisin

APPROVED:

LESTER Y. PILCHERMAJ, 14S

Chief, Air Pollution Engineering Division

Air Pollution Consultation No. 43-21-1229-87, May 87

APFENDIX A

REFERENCES

1. AR 40-5, 30 August 1986, Preventive Medicin?.

2. AR 200-1, 15 June 1982, Environmental Prot-ction and Enhancement.

3. Letter, USAEHA, HSHB-ME-AA, 4 February 1987, subject: Air PollutionConsultation No. 43-21-1229-87, Evaluaticn of Multiple Incinerator Air QualityImpacts, Edgewood Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, December 1986.

4. Letter, USAEHA, HSHB-ME-AA, 10 October 1986, subject: Air PollutionConsultation No. 43-21-1229-87, Evaluation of Multiple Incinerator StackEffects at Edgewood Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground - Preliminary Analysis ofOverlapping Plumes.

5. Environmental Protection Agency Report No. EPA-450/4-79-030, December 1979,Industrial Source Complex (ISC) User's Guide, Volumes I and II.

6. EPA Report No. EPA-450/2-78-027R, July 1986, Guideline on Air Quality Models(Revised).

e 7. EPA Report No. DHEA-E-187, May 1986, Development of Advisory Levels forA. M Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Cleanup.

8. V. Ovacic; G. Wong; H. Tosine; R.E. Clement; and J. Osborne, "Emissions ofChlorinated Organics from Two Municipal Incinerators in Ontario," Journal of&he Air Pollution Control Association, Volume 35, No. 8, August 1985.

9. Permit to Construct for the Department of Army Aberdeen Proving Ground ChemicalStockpile Disposal System, Revision 0, Program Manager for Chemical Munitions(Demilitarization and Binary) (Provisional), AMCPM, 30 September 1986.

10. Proposed Rule, National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Synthetic OrganicChemicals, Inorganic Chemicals, and Microorganisms, 50 FR 46949, 13 November 191

A-1

, I I

Air Pollution Consultation No. 43-21-1229-87. mlay 87

APPENDIX B

W:ND?:sE

NWN

NEN

WW ES

SwS

N=2a LCt 011VIS!ON ISO-3 4-7 F-12 2,12 2 1% of 70cm MTh

US ARMIY ENV/IRONMIENTAL ___ ___________

HYGIENE G EN C YPI-O MPoIC01 07 n-R6CR

or ý_______________ ________________________I C"

WCi

A0 .

2