[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 134 (Tuesday, July 14, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37797-37808]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18732]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[SW-FRL-6124-3]


Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of 
Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to grant a petition submitted by 
McDonnell Douglas Corporation (McDonnell Douglas), a wholly owned 
subsidiary of The Boeing Corporation, to exclude (or delist) certain 
solid wastes generated by its U.S. Air Force Plant Number 3 (Air Force 
Plant No. 3) Tulsa, Oklahoma, facility from the lists of hazardous 
wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.24 and 261.31 (hereinafter all sectional 
references are to 40 CFR unless otherwise indicated). This petition was 
submitted under Sec. 260.20(a), which allows any person to petition the 
Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of parts 260 through 
266, 268 and 273, and under Sec. 260.22(a), which specifically provides 
generators the opportunity to petition the Administrator to exclude a 
waste on a ``generator specific'' basis from the hazardous waste lists. 
This proposed decision is based on an evaluation of waste-specific 
information provided by the petitioner. If this proposed decision is 
finalized, the petitioned waste will be excluded from the requirements 
of hazardous waste regulations under the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act (RCRA).

DATES: The EPA is requesting public comments on this proposed decision. 
Comments will be accepted until August 28, 1998. Comments postmarked 
after the close of the comment period will be stamped ``late,'' and 
will not be considered in formulating a final decision.
    Any person may request a hearing on this proposed decision by 
filing a request with Acting Director, Robert Hannesschlager, 
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, whose address appears 
below, by July 29, 1998. The request must contain the information 
prescribed in Sec. 260.20(d).

ADDRESSES: Send three copies of your comments. Two copies should be 
sent to the William Gallagher, Delisting Section, Multimedia Planning 
and Permitting Division (6PD-O), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 
Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. A third copy should be sent to the 
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, 707 North Robinson 
Street, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102. Identify your comments at the 
top with this regulatory docket number: ``F-98-OKDEL-AIRFORCEPLANT3.''
    Requests for a hearing should be addressed to the Acting Director, 
Robert Hannesschlager, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division 
(6PD), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 
75202.
    The RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule is located at the 
Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, 
Texas 75202 and is available for viewing

[[Page 37798]]

in the Freedom of Information Act Reviewing Room on the 7th Floor from 
9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal 
holidays. Call (214) 665-6444 for appointments. The public may copy 
material from any regulatory docket at no cost for the first 100 pages, 
and at fifteen cents per page for additional copies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information concerning 
this notice, contact David Vogler, Multimedia Planning and Permitting 
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Dallas, TX 75202, (214)665-7428.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Authority

    On January 16, 1981, as part of its final and interim final 
regulations implementing section 3001 of RCRA, EPA published an amended 
list of hazardous wastes from non-specific and specific sources. This 
list has been amended several times, and is published in Secs. 261.31 
and 261.32. These wastes are listed as hazardous because they typically 
and frequently exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous 
wastes identified in subpart C of part 261 (i.e., ignitability, 
corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity) or meet the criteria for listing 
contained in Sec. 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3).
    Individual waste streams may vary however, depending on raw 
materials, industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste 
that is described in these regulations generally is hazardous, a 
specific waste from an individual facility meeting the listing 
description may not be. For this reason, Secs. 260.20 and 260.22 
provide an exclusion procedure, allowing persons to demonstrate that a 
specific waste from a particular generating facility should not be 
regulated as a hazardous waste.
    To have their wastes excluded, petitioners must show that wastes 
generated at their facilities do not meet any of the criteria for which 
the wastes were listed. See Sec. 260.22(a) and the background documents 
for the listed wastes. In addition, the Hazardous and Solid Waste 
Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 require the EPA to consider any factors 
(including additional constituents) other than those for which the 
waste was listed, if there is a reasonable basis to believe that such 
additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. Accordingly, 
a petitioner also must demonstrate that the waste does not exhibit any 
of the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e., ignitability, reactivity, 
corrosivity, and toxicity), and must present sufficient information for 
the EPA to determine whether the waste contains any other toxicants at 
hazardous levels. See Sec. 260.22(a), 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and the 
background documents for the listed wastes. Although wastes which are 
``delisted'' (i.e., excluded) have been evaluated to determine whether 
or not they exhibit any of the characteristics of hazardous waste, 
generators remain obligated under RCRA to determine whether or not 
their waste remains nonhazardous based on the hazardous waste 
characteristics.
    In addition, mixtures containing listed hazardous wastes are also 
considered hazardous wastes as are wastes derived from the treatment, 
storage, or disposal of listed hazardous waste. See 
Sec. 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(i), referred to as the ``mixture'' and 
``derived-from'' rules, respectively. Such wastes are also eligible for 
exclusion and remain hazardous wastes until excluded. On December 6, 
1991, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated 
the ``mixture/derived from'' rules and remanded them to the EPA on 
procedural grounds. See Shell Oil Co. v. EPA, 950 F.2d 741 (D.C. Cir. 
1991). On March 3, 1992, EPA reinstated the mixture and derived-from 
rules, and solicited comments on other ways to regulate waste mixtures 
and residues (57 FR 7628). These rules became final on October 30, 1992 
(57 FR 49278). These references should be consulted for more 
information regarding mixtures and derived from wastes.

B. Approach Used to Evaluate This Petition

    McDonnell Douglas' Air Force Plant No. 3 petition requests a one-
time delisting for listed hazardous wastes. In making the initial 
delisting determination, the EPA evaluated the petitioned wastes 
against the listing criteria and factors cited in Secs. 261.11(a)(1), 
261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this review, the EPA agreed with the 
petitioner that the waste is nonhazardous with respect to the original 
listing criteria. (If the EPA had found, based on this review, that the 
wastes remained hazardous based on the factors for which the wastes 
were originally listed, EPA would have proposed to deny the petition.) 
The EPA then evaluated the wastes with respect to other factors or 
criteria to assess whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that 
such additional factors could cause the wastes to be hazardous. The EPA 
considered whether the wastes are acutely toxic, the toxicity of the 
constituents, the concentration of the constituents in the wastes, 
their tendency to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their persistence in 
the environment once released from the wastes, plausible and specific 
types of management of the petitioned wastes, the quantities of wastes 
generated, and waste variability.
    For this delisting determination, the EPA used such information 
gathered to identify plausible exposure routes (i.e., ground water, 
surface water and air) for hazardous constituents present in the 
petitioned wastes. The EPA determined that disposal in a Subtitle D 
(solid, nonhazardous waste) landfill is the most reasonable, worst-case 
disposal scenario for McDonnell Douglas' petitioned wastes, and that 
the major exposure route of concern would be ingestion of contaminated 
ground water. Therefore, the EPA used a particular fate and transport 
model, the EPA Composite Model for Landfills (EPACML), to predict the 
maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous constituents that may be 
released from the petitioned wastes after disposal and to determine the 
potential impact of the disposal of McDonnell Douglas' petitioned 
wastes on human health and the environment. Specifically, the EPA used 
the maximum estimated waste volumes and the maximum reported extract 
concentrations as inputs to estimate the constituent concentrations in 
the ground water at a hypothetical receptor well downgradient from the 
disposal site. The calculated receptor well concentrations (referred to 
as compliance-point concentrations) were then compared directly to the 
current Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) promulgated under the Safe 
Drinking Water Act (SWDA) or health-based levels derived from verified 
Reference Doses (RfDs). The values used for lead and copper are action 
levels for treatment of a water supply in lieu of an MCL (40 CFR 
141.80).
    The EPA believes that this fate and transport model represents a 
reasonable worst-case scenario for disposal of the petitioned wastes in 
a landfill, and that a reasonable worst-case scenario is appropriate 
when evaluating whether a waste should be relieved of the protective 
management constraints of RCRA Subtitle C. The use of a reasonable 
worst-case scenario results in conservative values for the compliance-
point concentrations and gives a high degree of confidence that the 
waste, once removed from hazardous waste regulation, will not pose a 
threat to human health or the environment. In most cases, because a 
delisted waste is no longer subject to hazardous waste control (unless 
conditionally delisted),

[[Page 37799]]

the EPA is generally unable to predict, and does not presently control, 
how a waste will be managed after delisting. Therefore, EPA normally 
believes that it is inappropriate to consider extensive site-specific 
factors when applying the fate and transport model. If however, 
conditions contained in a delisting indicate that it is necessary to 
consider site specific factors or otherwise indicate that the model is 
inappropriate, EPA may consider these factors in applying the model. 
For modeling purposes it is assumed that a Subtitle D landfill will be 
unlined.
    The EPA also considers the applicability of ground water monitoring 
data during the evaluation of delisting petitions. In this case, the 
EPA determined that it would be appropriate to review ground water 
monitoring data since the petitioned wastes generated at McDonnell 
Douglas' facility were disposed of as part of an onsite surface 
impoundment which was partitioned by dikes into three lagoons which 
were closed as a single RCRA landfill. The analytical results from a 
combination of up to eighteen monitoring wells dating from 1981 until 
1997 was reviewed. The data indicated that there has been no 
significant impact to the ground water from the closed landfill. The 
evaluation of this information is another indication that the waste has 
been stabilized and does not leach hazardous constituents in 
concentrations that are significant to human health and the 
environment.
    From the evaluation of McDonnell Douglas' delisting petition, a 
list of constituents was developed for the verification testing 
conditions. Proposed maximum allowable leachable concentrations for 
these constituents were derived by back-calculating from the delisting 
health-based levels through the proposed fate and transport model for a 
landfill management scenario. These concentrations (i.e., delisting 
levels) are part of the proposed verification testing conditions of the 
exclusion.
    McDonnell Douglas' exclusion (if granted) would be contingent upon 
the facility conducting stabilization activities on approximately 5,000 
cubic yards of the 85,000 cubic yards of petitioned waste present in 
the three lagoons jointly closed as a RCRA landfill. Subsequent 
verification testing of representative samples of the newly stabilized 
waste would also be required. Analytical data from cores taken from the 
landfill indicate that about 5,000 cubic yards of waste was not 
stabilized during the closure process and will need to be stabilized 
before being transported offsite for disposal in a Subtitle D landfill. 
These wastes are presently located in the bottom one to three feet of 
lower portion of the northwest lagoon which is a portion of the surface 
impoundments closed as a landfill at the Tulsa Air Force Plant No. 3 
Facility. The unstabilized wastes are easily identified by color, 
texture, and general physical appearance. This testing would be 
necessary to verify that the stabilization system is operating as 
demonstrated in the petition submitted on November 7, 1997. 
Specifically, the verification testing requirements of the conditional 
exclusion (if granted), would be implemented to demonstrate that the 
stabilization process will generate nonhazardous wastes (i.e., wastes 
that meet the EPA's verification testing conditions).
    Analytical data submitted from cores of the petitioned wastes 
located in the upper portion of the northwest lagoon, the northeast 
lagoon, and the south lagoon of the landfill indicated that the waste 
in those areas was previously stabilized and therefore would not 
require additional verification testing. The EPA's proposed decision to 
delist wastes from the Air Force Plant No. 3 facility is based on the 
information submitted in support of today's rule, i.e., description of 
the historical wastewater treatment system and analytical data from the 
Tulsa facility's closed landfill.
    Finally, the HSWA specifically require the EPA to provide notice 
and an opportunity for comment before granting or denying a final 
exclusion. Thus, a final decision will not be made until all timely 
public comments (including those at public hearings, if any) on today's 
proposal are addressed.

II. Disposition of Delisting Petition

    Air Force Plant No. 3, McDonnell Douglas Corporation, a wholly 
owned subsidiary of The Boeing Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74115

A. Petition for Exclusion

    McDonnell Douglas petitioned the EPA for a one-time exclusion for 
85,000 cubic yards of stabilized and solidified waste located in three 
surface impoundments that were closed as a single RCRA landfill unit in 
1989 at the U. S. Air Force Plant No. 3, located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. 
Approximately 5,000 cubic yards of the 85,000 cubic yards of petitioned 
wastes were not previously stabilized and would be required to undergo 
stabilization and verification testing. The petitioned wastes were 
generated as a part of the facility's wastewater treatment process 
which operated from 1953 to 1989. The resulting wastes are presently 
listed as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019. The petitioned wastes are 
believed to also have very small amounts of wastes presently classified 
as F002, F003, and F005. The listed constituents of concern for these 
waste codes are listed in Table 1.

   Table 1.--Hazardous Waste Codes Associated With Wastewater Streams   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Waste code               Basis for characteristics/listing       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F019...................  Hexavalent Chromium. Cyanide (complexed).      
F002...................  Tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene,        
                          methylene chloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,    
                          1,1,2-trichloroethane, chlorobenzene, 1,1,2-  
                          trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane, ortho-       
                          dichlorobenzene, trichlorofluoromethane.      
F003...................  Xylene, acetone, ethyl acetate, ethyl benzene, 
                          ethyl ether, methyl isobutyl ketone, n-butyl  
                          alcohol, cyclohexanone, methanol.             
F005...................  Toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, carbon disulfide,
                          isobutanol, pyridine, benzene, 2-             
                          ethoxyethanol, 2-nitropropane.                
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    McDonnell Douglas (Air Force Plant No. 3) petitioned the EPA to 
exclude the stabilized treatment wastes because it does not believe 
that the petitioned wastes meet the criteria for which they were 
listed. McDonnell Douglas further believes that the wastes are not 
hazardous for any other reason (i.e., there are no additional 
constituents or factors that could cause the wastes to be hazardous). 
Review of this petition included consideration of the original listing 
criteria, as well as the additional factors required by the HSWA. See 
section 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)-(4). 
Today's proposal to grant this petition for delisting is the result of 
the EPA's evaluation of Air Force Plant No.3's petition as submitted by 
McDonnell Douglas Corporation.

B. Background

    On November 7, 1997, McDonnell Douglas petitioned the EPA to grant 
a one-time exclusion from the lists of hazardous waste contained in 
Secs. 261.31

[[Page 37800]]

and 261.32, a one-time volume of stabilized and solidified wastewater 
treatment plant sludges which were disposed of in the facility's 
wastewater surface impoundments which have since been jointly closed as 
a RCRA landfill unit in accordance with a closure and post-closure plan 
approved by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 
The wastewater treatment sludges were stabilized with fly ash and then 
capped with a RCRA cap. Specifically, in its petition, McDonnell 
Douglas requested that the EPA grant an exclusion for 85,000 cubic 
yards of stabilized wastewater treatment sludge. The facility 
characterized the petitioned waste as stabilized with the exception of 
about 5,000 cubic yards which will require stabilization and 
verification testing.
    In support of its petition, McDonnell Douglas submitted: (1) 
Descriptions of its wastewater treatment processes and the activities 
associated with petitioned wastes; (2) results of the total constituent 
list for 40 CFR part 264, Appendix IX volatiles, semivolatiles, metals, 
pesticides, herbicides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), furans, and 
dioxins; (3) results of the constituent list for Appendix IX on 
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) extract for 
identified constituents; (4) results for total sulfide; (5) results for 
total cyanide; (6) results for pH; (7) results of the Multiple 
Extraction Procedure (MEP) for acidic, neutral, and basic extractions; 
(8) results of ground water monitoring; and (9) results of surface 
impoundment waste analysis for constituents of concern.
    Air Force Plant No. 3 is an inactive plant that was used for 
maintenance operations on military and commercial aircraft, as well as 
for manufacturing aerospace and aircraft products. The bulk of the 
petitioned waste was generated by treatment of wastewater generated by 
electroplating and metal finishing operations. Analysis indicates that 
the plant may have treated minor amounts of fuels. Wastes were 
collected in two separate sewer systems: acid-chrome and alkali-chrome. 
Wastes were then directed to the onsite industrial wastewater treatment 
plant. Cyanide was oxidized using chlorine. The chromic wastewater was 
treated by reduction with sulfur dioxide. The pH was controlled using 
caustic soda, sulfuric acid, and carbon dioxide. Ferrous sulfate was 
fed into the clarifier to flocculate solids. The resulting wastewater 
treatment sludges accumulated in sludge sumps and then were pumped 
through a pipeline into the system of surface impoundments. In 1989, 
most of the sludges in the impoundments were stabilized and solidified 
using fly ash and some clay. Later borings indicated that some of the 
waste in the lower portion in the northwest section of the impoundments 
was not completely stabilized. McDonnell Douglas wants to similarly 
stabilize this waste and delist all waste in all of the impoundments 
closed as a single RCRA landfill. The waste will then be transported 
offsite and disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill. It is planned to 
clean close the Air Force Plant No. 3 landfill under ODEQ authority.
    McDonnell Douglas developed a list of constituents of concern from 
comparing a list of all raw materials used in the plant that could 
potentially appear in the petitioned waste with those found in 40 CFR 
part 264. McDonnell Douglas analyzed two composite samples for the 
total concentrations (i.e., mass of a particular constituent per mass 
of waste) of the volatiles and semivolatiles, metals, herbicides, 
pesticides, PCBs, and furans from Appendix IX. These two samples (NW-37 
and SE-37) were analyzed for the comprehensive list in order to confirm 
that there were no other constituents of concern in the surface 
impoundments.
    Twenty-one (21) composite samples were taken from the closed 
landfill unit. Five of these samples were from the northwest lagoon of 
the unit where the sludges that are not completely stabilized are 
located. All samples were analyzed for constituents of concern and were 
also analyzed to determine whether the waste exhibited ignitable, 
corrosive, or reactive properties as defined under 40 CFR 261.21, 
261.22, and 261.23, including analysis for total constituent 
concentrations of cyanide and sulfide. These samples were also analyzed 
for TCLP concentrations (i.e., mass of a particular constituent per 
unit volume of extract) of all the volatiles, semivolatiles, and metals 
identified as constituents of concern. The MEP was performed on four 
samples to test the ability to stabilize eighteen (18) different metals 
at three different pH's. The procedure was run at three different pH 
values (2.88, 7, and 13 Standard Units) to determine if a change in pH 
might significantly alter the leachate concentrations. Historical 
analytical results from ground water monitoring wells was also 
submitted for review.

C. EPA Analysis

    McDonnell Douglas used SW-846 Methods 8260, 8270, 6010, 7196A, 
7471, to quantify the total constituent concentrations of volatiles and 
semivolatiles (excluding PCBs, pesticides, herbicides) metals, and 
dioxins/furans. McDonnell Douglas used SW-846 Methods 9045, 9030A, 9012 
to quantify pH, total sulfide, and total cyanide. McDonnell Douglas 
used SW-846 Methods 8260, 8270, 6010, 7196A, 7470 to quantify the 
constituents from the TCLP extract. The petitioned waste does not meet 
the definitions for reactivity and corrosivity as defined by 
Secs. 261.22 and 261.23. Tables 2A and 2B present the maximum total 
constituent and leachate concentrations for the stabilized waste. 
Tables 3A and 3B present the maximum total constituent and leachate 
concentrations for the unstabilized sludge waste samples from the 
bottom of the northwest lagoon of the unit.
    McDonnell Douglas calculated, based on a one-time removal and 
addition of stabilization agents, the maximum petitioned waste to be 
excluded will be 85,000 cubic yards of stabilized waste.
    The EPA reviews a petitioner's estimates and, on occasion, has 
requested a petitioner to reevaluate the estimated waste volume. The 
EPA accepted McDonnell Douglas' certified estimates. The EPA does not 
generally verify submitted test data before proposing delisting 
decisions. The sworn affidavit submitted with this petition binds the 
petitioner to present truthful and accurate results. The EPA, however, 
has maintained a spot-check sampling and analysis program to verify the 
representative nature of the data for some percentage of the submitted 
petitions. A spot-check visit to a selected facility may be initiated 
before finalizing a delisting petition or after granting an exclusion.

Table 2A.--Maximum Organic Total Constituent and Leachate Concentrations
                                   \1\                                  
                [Stabilized Wastewater Treatment Sludge]                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Total                
                                                constituent    Leachate 
                 Constituents                  analyses (mg/   analyses 
                                                    kg)         (mg/l)  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone......................................         0.53            NA
Benzene......................................         0.003         <0.1
Ethylbenzene.................................         0.004           NA
Toluene......................................         0.035           NA
Xylenes......................................         0.019           NA
Phenol.......................................         0.39            NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
< Denotes that the constituent was not detected at the detection limit  
  specified in the table.                                               
\1\ These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent
  found in any one sample. These levels do not necessarily represent the
  specific levels found in one sample.                                  
NA Denotes that the constituent was not analyzed.                       


[[Page 37801]]


       Table 2B.--Maximum Inorganic Total Constituent and Leachate      
                           Concentrations \1\                           
                [Stabilized Wastewater Treatment Sludge]                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Total                
                                                constituent    Leachate 
                 Constituents                  analyses (mg/   analyses 
                                                    kg)         (mg/l)  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony.....................................         0.42        0.0145
Arsenic......................................        31.7          0.057
Barium.......................................      2860              3.4
Beryllium....................................         2.4         0.0195
Cadmium......................................        39.8          0.323
Chromium (Total).............................      9710             9.79
Chromium (Hexavalent)........................         0.42          0.06
Cobalt.......................................        16.1         0.0673
Copper.......................................       163            0.301
Lead.........................................        89           0.0422
Mercury......................................         0.09       0.00025
Nickel.......................................        64.4           0.28
Selenium.....................................        11.3         0.0691
Silver.......................................         0.4           0.03
Thallium.....................................         0.47         0.005
Tin..........................................        35.9         <0.014
Vanadium.....................................       228            0.141
Zinc.........................................       229            0.519
Sulfide (Total)..............................       <50               NA
Cyanide (Total)..............................         7               NA
pH (Standard Units)..........................         6.19            --
------------------------------------------------------------------------
< Denotes that the constituent was not detected at the detection limit  
  specified in the table.                                               
\1\ These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent
  found in any one sample. These levels do not necessarily represent the
  specific levels found in one sample.                                  
NA Denotes that the constituent was not analyzed.                       


Table 3A.--Maximum Organic Total Constituent and Leachate Concentrations
              \1\ Unstabilized Wastewater Treatment Sludge              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Leachate 
             Constituents                Total Constituent     Analyses 
                                         Analyses (mg/kg)       (mg/l)  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone..............................            0.15                 NA
Benzene..............................            0.185              <0.1
Ethylbenzene.........................          158                    NA
Toluene..............................         3000                    NA
Xylenes..............................          792                    NA
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene.............            0.212                NA
Tetrachloroethene....................            0.64               <0.1
Trichloroethylene....................         1090                  17.3
m-Cresol.............................           <0.38               0.09
p-Cresol.............................           <0.38              0.09 
------------------------------------------------------------------------